Appeal No. 1997-1343
Application 29/039,800
1. The ornamental design for a weighing platform for a scale as shown and described.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Dahlstrom Metal Moulding and Shapes (Dahlstrom); Cat. No. 12; 1969; p. 36.
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Dahlstrom article
#1623. In addition, the claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dahlstrom article #1623.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants, reference is made to the briefs and answer 2
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection under either 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
In determining the patentability of a design, it is the overall appearance, the visual effect as a
whole of the design, which must be taken into consideration. In re Leslie, 547 F.2d 116, 120, 192
USPQ 427, 429 (CCPA 1977). In determining whether a design patent application is properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the prior art reference must show the same subject matter as that of
Appellants' claim and must be identical in all material respects. See Hupp v. Siroflex of America,
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on August 5, 1996. Appellants filed a reply brief on
December 9, 1996. On June 17, 1997, the Examiner mailed a communication stating that the reply
brief has been entered and considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007