Ex parte MEYER - Page 3

          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                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007