Appeal No. 2000-2183
Application No. 29/082,343
cap is patentable over the applied prior art. It is difficult
to see how Vance can be said to have design characteristics
which are basically the same as the claimed design, i.e., can
be said to constitute a Rosen reference, when, as appellant
argues, all (both) of its design elements would have to be
modified in order to arrive at the claimed design. Comparing
the cap design disclosed by Vance with that claimed by
appellant, we conclude that Vance does not constitute a Rosen
reference, and, therefore, the rejection cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject the claim is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007