Appeal No. 2004-2299
Application No. 09/244,006
cannot be regarded as nonobvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103. The rationale supporting this conclusion may be expressed in
various ways. For example, it is appropriate to conclude that the
“three-dimensional character face” recitation cannot be relied on
to patentably distinguish the claimed article from Goodman’s
corresponding article because this recited feature relates to
ornamentation only and has no mechanical function whatever. In re
Seid, 161 F.2d at 231, 73 USPQ at 433. Similarly, because this
feature is not functionally related to the article substrate on
which it is affixed, the feature does not distinguish the claimed
article from Goodman’s article in terms of patentability. Cf., In
re Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404. Finally, the above
noted characteristics or facts7 support a conclusion that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to provide
Goodman’s article with an applique design having corresponding
characteristics, such as a three-dimensional character face, based
upon motivations (e.g., ornamentation) which are not germane to the
patentability of claims for utility inventions under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
7That is, the facts that the “three-dimensional character
face” relates to ornamentation only, has no mechanical function
whatever, and is not functionally related to the article
substrate.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007