Appeal No. 1999-1569
Application 29/021,723
considerations only, the resulting design is not patentable as
an ornamental design for the simple reason that is it not
‘ornamental’ – as not created for the purpose of ornamenting.
[Citations omitted.]”). “In determining whether a design is
primarily functional or primarily ornamental the claimed
design is viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is
not the functional or decorative aspect of each separate
feature, but the overall appearance of the article, in
determining whether the claimed design is dictated by the
utilitarian purpose if the article. [Citations omitted.]” L.A.
Gear, supra. “When there are several ways to achieve the
function of an article of manufacture, the design of the
article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental
purpose. [Citations omitted.]” Id. Thus, when viewed in its
entirety, “[I]f the particular design is essential to the use
of the article, it can not be the subject of a design patent.”
Id.; see also Power Controls, supra (patent is invalid if the
claimed design is primarily functional rather than
ornamental). 1
1Contrary the position advanced by appellant in his brief,
(continued...)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007