Ex parte MEYER - Page 4

                 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                                                                    

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007