Appeal No. 2003-1760
Application No. 29/159,145
the examiner contends that the raised and depressed areas shown in Figure 4 are
poorly differentiated, and the sectioned area “is not fully consistent between the
sectional view and the portions of Fig. 4 lying along the section line....” (Id.)
Appellant responds that no reasonable person, and particularly not one “versed
in the art dealing with an article of manufacture imparted with an ornamental design,”
would understand the “surface texture” shown in Figure 4 to be limited to that particular
area. (Brief at 5.) Appellant also refers to a declaration, filed December 17, 2002
(Paper No. 8), submitted by the draftsman who prepared the instant drawings. The
draftsman avers therein that the area shown in Figure 4 is representative of the surface
ornamentation of the entire surface of the object, and did not feel it was humanly
possible to draw the surface ornamentation as it appears throughout the entire surface,
particularly due to the different perspectives of view represented by the figures. The
draftsman also avers that, in his opinion, the instant drawings would be effective to
anyone knowing how to read and interpret drawings to enable visualization of the
object.
The examiner responds (Answer at 4) that the surface texture in a model
submitted by appellant, but not discernable in the claim, provides evidence that the
Section 112, first paragraph rejection is proper. The examiner also asserts that the
declaration does not constitute evidence of sufficiency of the disclosure of the claim.
In general, requirements for patentability for design applications are the same as
those for utility applications. 35 U.S.C. § 171. With respect to enablement under the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007