Appeal No. 1999-2009 Page 3
Application No. 29/052,870
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
8, mailed May 13, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed
February 4, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 12,
filed November 16, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 14 ½,
filed April 12, 1999) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's drawings,
specification and claim and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have determined that the
examiner's rejection of the appellant's design claim under 35
U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained.
At the outset, we keep in mind that, in a rejection of a
design claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, there is a requirement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007