Ex Parte Ledingham - Page 6







             Appeal No. 2003-1862                                                                                    
             Application No. 29/153,657                                                                              
                    In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting the design                      
             claim on appeal under 35 U.S.C.'103 is reversed1.                                                       
                                                    REVERSED                                                         




                                         JAMES D. THOMAS            )                                                
                                         Administrative Patent Judge   )                                             
                                                                    )                                                
                                                                    )                                                
                                         CHARLES E. FRANKFORT    )   BOARD OF PATENT                                 
                                         Administrative Patent Judge   )       APPLEALS AND                          
                                                                    )      INTERFERENCES                             
                                                                    )                                                
                                         JEFFREY T. SMITH           )                                                
                                         Administrative Patent Judge   )                                             



             JDT/dpv                                                                                                 









                                                                                                                    
                    1 Since we have concluded the Examiner=s failure to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, 
             we have no need to consider appellant=s secondary evidence of commercial success.                       


                                                      6                                                              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007