Appeal No. 2003-0656 Page 4
Application No. 29/124,773
appearance of the outer surface area of the main portion of the
shorts.
Appellant does not specifically contend in the brief that
the shorts design depicted in Metimex would not represent a
Rosen-type reference. However, appellant argues that the claimed
design is not suggested by Metimex taken in combination with
Sportpages for several reasons as set forth in the brief.
Among the argued visually distinctive features of the
claimed design, appellant notes the differences in the appearance
of the side panels of the claimed design over the side panels of
Metimex. Appellant argues that the appearance of the sides of
appellant’s shorts is highlighted by the coarse or rough lines
depicted in the figures, which can be seen as extending to at
least a portion of the visible inside surface of the legs of the
fabric as shown in appellant’s drawing figure 4 in comparison to
the smoother surface markings on the rest of the shorts design
observable in the drawings. Here, we share the view of appellant
that the visual impression of the two contrasting looks for the
side and the rest of the shorts as depicted in appellant’s
drawing figures give an overall visually distinct impression from
that which would have been readily seen or suggested to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007