Appeal No. 2000-0553
Application No. 29/079,653
would be applicable to a cake cutter device of the type to
which the present invention (and Haugland) pertains.” “That
is, even though Harvey discloses a non-serrated blade and that
the blade comes straight off the handle, these features are
notoriously well known in the general knife art and there is
still no teaching or suggestion in Harvey to apply these
features to the cake slicer of Haugland to achieve the overall
visual appearance and ornamental effect of the claimed present
invention” (Brief, page 8).
In response to appellant’s arguments, the examiner argues
that Haugland is a proper Rosen reference because it has “the2
same ‘design characteristics’ as the claimed design” (Answer,
page 3), that “[w]hile there may appear to be a ‘multitude of
differences’ it is still believed that the overall appearance
of the claimed design is met by the prior art” (Answer, page
3), that “Harvey is believed to be a proper secondary
reference as a knife is in the same U.S. class as a cake
slicer/cutter, hence an analogous art and well within the
knowledge of a designer with ordinary skill in the art”
2 In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA
1982).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007