Appeal No. 2002-2307
Application No. 29/105,570
designs of Guthrie and Lin are applied for their showings of a
pattern of lens openings.
Clearly, the examiner's basic reference lacks appellant's
ornamentally consequential feature of the appearance of a
particular pattern of openings in transparent lenses of an
eyeglasses accessory. As explained below, this panel of the
Board does not view the respective designs of Guthrie and Lin as
being suggestive of the modification proposed by the examiner.
Unlike the now claimed design, Guthrie reveals the aesthetic
feature of opaque discs (round configurations) with perforations.
As to the Lin reference, it portrays the ornamental feature of a
second (round) lens design 23 with apertures for association with
a first lens design 22. As we see it, the particular and
distinct design shown in each of Guthrie and Lin is not so
related to the overall Shelton design that a designer of eyeglass
accessories would have been motivated to modify the Shelton
design, as proposed, to effect the now claimed design. It is for
this reason that we cannot support the rejection on appeal.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
rejection of appellant's design claim.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007