Ex Parte McMahon - Page 7

             Appeal 2007-2227                                                                                      
             Application 10/778,963                                                                                
             Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the                    
             claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device                     
             having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the                         
             prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art                   
             device.  Upon review of the spiral shaped necklace extension of Cayton, it would                      
             reasonably appear that the claimed spiral shaped necklace extension is merely a                       
             predictable use of a prior art element according to its established function for                      
             extending a necklace length.                                                                          
                    In the present case, we find that the necklace extension device of Cayton is                   
             similar to that of the claimed invention except the “top” spiral (as shown in Figure                  
             2, reproduced above) is shorter and of a smaller size than the “bottom” spiral  and                   
             thus not a mirror image of the top bottom spiral.  In Figure 2 of Cayton, as is clear                 
             from the drawing, the top, smaller spiral is open and can accommodate additional                      
             necklace chains.  We further find that it would have been obvious to one of                           
             ordinary skill in the art to extend the length (size) of the top, small spiral of Cayton              
             to the length and shape of the bottom, large spiral of Cayton to form a mirror                        
             image of the bottom spiral to further accommodate multiple necklace chains, as an                     
             alternative design available and known in the prior art.  In addition, Cloud,                         
             although an earring jewelry piece, also reflects that a larger spiral is a known                      
             design available to the ordinary designer in the jewelry art.                                         
                    At best, we find that Appellant has merely extended the size of the smaller,                   
             top spiral of Cayton and that this change in size does not perform differently than                   
             the opposing larger spiral disclosed in Cayton.  Both spirals perform equivalently                    
             in Cayton.  The larger spiral at the bottom of the necklace extension of Cayton is a                  
             design known to one of ordinary skill in the necklace extension art. The larger and                   
             smaller spirals function equivalently in Cayton as attaching means to the necklace.                   


                                                       - 7 -                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013