Ex parte MEYER - Page 6

          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.                     


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007