Appeal No. 2000-0224 Page 6
Application No. 29/081,424
The examiner contends that Stokes does share similar characteristics with the claimed
design, in that both the claimed design and the Stokes pipe are L-shaped pipes intended to
transport liquids (answer, page 4). Even assuming that the design characteristics of either of
the pipe sections 31 of Stokes are basically the same as the appellant's claimed design as
contended by the examiner, we note that there are material differences between the appellant's
design and either of the Stokes pipes which produce an overall appearance which would be
recognized as different by an ordinary observer. In the appellant's design, the length of the
shorter leg and the inside radius of curvature of the bend are each about the same as, or
perhaps slightly larger than, the diameter of the pipe and the longer leg is significantly longer
(at least about 10 times) than the diameter of the pipe. Turning first to the Stokes pipe section
31 running between the connection fitting and the fuel chamber 15, the shorter (vertical) leg has
a length which is noticeably larger than the pipe diameter, while the bend is so sharp that its
radius of curvature is almost imperceptible, giving an impression very close to a corner rather
than a curved bend. The pipe section 31 running between the main tank 30 and the connection
fitting has a (possibly shorter) horizontal leg whose length, even foreshortened as illustrated, is
noticeably more than several times the pipe diameter, as distinguished from the shorter leg of
the appellant's design. Additionally, unlike the smooth ends of the appellant's design, the right-
hand end of each of the pipe sections 31 of Stokes is threaded. The examiner's rejection, as
discussed above, relies on the elbow piece 12 in Richards' automatic swimming pool water
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007