The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CHARLES POMEROY
and JOHN T. BYCRAFT
______________
Appeal No. 2004-0401
Application 29/160,956
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WINTERS, WARREN and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of the design claim:
The ornamental design for CHAIR GLIDER as shown and described,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pomeroy ‘599 in view of Pomeroy ‘340.1
1 The examiner states that the ground of rejection is set forth in the Office action mailed
November 21, 2002 (Paper No. 3) (see answer, page 3). Pomeroy ‘599 is United States Design
Patent 417,559, and Pomeroy ‘340 is United States Design Patent 410,340, both to Pomeroy
et al. (see answer, page 2).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007