Appeal No. 2000-1348
Application No. 29/092,024
Opinion
Like appellant, we consider the claimed ornamental design
to be rather plain in appearance. One of the predominate
visual features of the claimed design is the vertical slot
configuration provided in the upstanding panel. This slot
configuration is aptly described by appellant’s counsel as
being a “relatively narrow slot that is centered within and
inset from a wider slot by a marginal flange, as shown in
FIGURE 1 and FIGURE 5” (brief, page 4). The resulting
appearance when viewed from the front (figure 5), the back
(figure 6), and from various angles (see, for example, the
perspective views of figures 1 and 7) is one of a relatively
narrow slot floating within and inset from a relatively wider
slot. Turning to Stadtmauer’s figures 2 and 7, we see that
the slots 25a formed in the upstanding panel 25 are of uniform
shape throughout their penetration of the panel, except
perhaps for a vertically extending flange that appears to be
flanged vertically extending edges of the upstanding panel.
However, in that appellant does not argue these differences as
patentably distinguishing over the references, we will not
consider them in deciding the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007