Appeal No. 2000-0658
Application 29/084,939
having design characteristics basically the same as those of
the claimed design is reasonable on its face, and has not been
specifically challenged by the appellants. The appellants,
however, do dispute (see pages 3 through 6 in the brief, Paper
No. 10) the examiner’s conclusion (see pages 4 and 5 in the
answer) that the differences between the claimed and Lo
designs involve de minimis changes which would have been well
within the skill of the ordinary designer and do not
patentably distinguish the claimed design from the prior art.
The contrasts between the claimed design and that
disclosed by Lo are perhaps best illustrated by comparing
Figure 1 of the appellants’ drawings and Figure 2 of Lo’s
drawings, both of which show front elevational views of the
respective bat designs. From our perspective, the
dissimilarities embodied by the cylindrical shape of the
barrel and handle portions of the claimed design versus the
tapered shape of the barrel and handle portions of the Lo
design, the relative lengths of the barrel and handle portions
of the claimed design versus the relative lengths of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007