Appeal No. 1997-1343
Application 29/039,800
We fail to find that the Examiner has shown that a designer of ordinary capability which designs
weighing scales would look to the bead trim art for designs of such articles. We fail to find that the
Examiner's argument that the claimed design for a platform scale would be pertinent to a bead trim
because both designs appear nothing more than excluded sheets of metal. Merely because the general
shape was per se known in unrelated art does not make the claimed ornamental design for a platform
for a weighing scale obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Furthermore, we note that it is the Examiner's burden of showing that the art is pertinent.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner's decision rejecting the sole claim under 35 U.S.C. §§
102 and 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007