Appeal No. 2003-0007 Page 3
Application No. 29/092,219
The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s observation (Brief at 5-6) that the Phyrich
knob includes a patterned central portion that appears to be polished granite or a simulated
polished granite surface. Instead, the Examiner argues that Appellant has merely taken the old
mosaic-like appearance shown in the Phylrich knob and merely roughened and raised the surface.
We do not agree. The hills and valleys of the claimed knob design present a different visual
effect than the smooth granite-like appearance of the patterned portion of the Phylrich knob.
This is not a case in which the difference between the prior art design and the claimed
design is limited to the formation of a design feature by either lowering or raising it. See In re
Cornwall, 230 F.2d 457, 459, 109 USPQ 57, 58 (CCPA 1956)(Whether any particular design is
embossed on or impressed in the surface to which it is applied is merely a matter of choice).
Here, the mosaic-like nature of the prior art design is not due to a difference in elevation, but due
to the color and light effects of the granite or simulated-granite. We agree with Appellant that
the bumpy nature of the central portion gives the claimed knob design an overall appearance
which is significantly different from the smooth polished granite-like look of the Phylrich knob.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of the claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007