Appeal No. 2000-0553
Application No. 29/079,653
we do not agree with the examiner that “these differences seem
to be de minimis when taken as a whole” (Final Rejection, page
2). For example, the curved upwardly extending portions of
the blades that join the lower portions of the handles in the
modified Haugland cake slicer are very different from the
substantially straight portions in the disclosed and claimed
design. According to the appellant, “Haugland makes it appear
that the handle is attached to an extension of the blade
rather than directly to the blade as in the present invention”
(Brief, page 6). We agree. Even with the blades straight off
the handles, “the handles of the Haugland cake slicer curve
outwardly” whereas the handles of the disclosed and claimed
design are straight (Brief, pages 6 and 7).
In summary, the overall ornamental appearance of the
claimed design is not suggested by Haugland and Harvey.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007