Appeal No. 2000-0553
Application No. 29/079,653
[design] in overall appearance except for the handle, the
blade being straight off the handle and a non-serrated blade,”
and Harvey because he shows “a handle and the blade being
straight of [sic, off] the handle and a non-serrated blade
similar to the claimed design” (paper number 5, page 2). The
examiner states (paper number 5, page 2) that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify the reference to Haugland by substituting
the handle, showing the blade straight off the
handle and providing a non-serrated blade as taught
by the reference to Harvey. The resulting article
being strikingly similar to the claimed design. The
claimed article fails to provide an appearance over
the references to warrant patentability.
Appellant has listed a plurality of differences between
the disclosed and claimed cake cutting knife design and the
cake slicer disclosed by Haugland (Brief, pages 5 through 7).
Appellant then argues (Brief, page 7) that “even though they
are functionally similar, the article of the present invention
is significantly different from the article of Haugland in
overall ornamental appearance.” With respect to the combined
teachings of Haugland and Harvey, appellant argues (Brief,
page 8) that “the Examiner has not pointed out any teaching or
even remote suggestion in Harvey that the teachings thereof
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007