Appeal No. 2000-1348 Application No. 29/092,024 are insufficiently significant to support patentability under section 103(a) since the difference[s] between [the] claimed design and [the] basic reference [are] minor when considering the overall appearance of . . . [the claimed design] as a whole. [Answer, page 4.] Appellant argues that the slots in the claimed design differ from those of the modified Stadtmauer design such that appellant’s slots produce a significant visual effect that clearly distinguish and contribute to the distinctive appearance, as a whole, of the . . . [claimed design]. The nested slot arrangement stands out as a distinctive visual feature in the design as a whole because [appellant’s] document holder is otherwise very simple and plain. Such a noticeable difference cannot simply be dismissed as slight or subtle or minor or de minimis. [Brief, page 7.] Appellant concludes on page 9 of the brief that “those features” [i.e., the visual effects attributable to the slots] convey a distinct visual impression which is novel and which would not have been obvious to the designer of ordinary skill who designs article of the type involved.1 1We appreciate that appellant’s design differs from that of Stadtmauer in other respects. See, for example, the 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007