Ex Parte Dewald

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 16, 2003

29092219 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 16, 2003)

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is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KEVIN DEWALD
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0007
Application No. 29/092,219
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GROSS, BAHR, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting the claim in this
design application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.
Appeal No. 2003-0007
Application No. 29/092,219
Page 2
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims the ornamental design for a pull (see Figs. 1-4). Such a pull is a knob
ordinarily placed on cabinets.
THE EVIDENCE
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Allison Cabinet Hardware Catalog; page 6, Knob 244 FWB; received August 15, 1996
Phylrich Sales Co. Catalog, page 39-C; knob (bottom row, far right) (1965).

THE REJECTION
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Allison knob 244FWB in view of the Phylrich knob (bottom row, far right). We reverse.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Phylrich shows a mosaic-like pattern on a knob and that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the surface decoration of the Allison knob as suggested by the Phylrich knob (Answer at 4). The
problem is that, even if it were obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
combination, the result would not suggest a knob of Appellant’s design.
Appeal No. 2003-0007
Application No. 29/092,219
Page 3
The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s observation (Brief at 5-6) that the Phyrich
knob includes a patterned central portion that appears to be polished granite or a simulated
polished granite surface. Instead, the Examiner argues that Appellant has merely taken the old
mosaic-like appearance shown in the Phylrich knob and merely roughened and raised the surface.
We do not agree. The hills and valleys of the claimed knob design present a different visual
effect than the smooth granite-like appearance of the patterned portion of the Phylrich knob.
This is not a case in which the difference between the prior art design and the claimed
design is limited to the formation of a design feature by either lowering or raising it. See In re
Cornwall, 230 F.2d 457, 459, 109 USPQ 57, 58 (CCPA 1956)(Whether any particular design is
embossed on or impressed in the surface to which it is applied is merely a matter of choice).
Here, the mosaic-like nature of the prior art design is not due to a difference in elevation, but due
to the color and light effects of the granite or simulated-granite. We agree with Appellant that
the bumpy nature of the central portion gives the claimed knob design an overall appearance
which is significantly different from the smooth polished granite-like look of the Phylrich knob.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of the claim.
Appeal No. 2003-0007
Application No. 29/092,219
Page 4
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
REVERSED
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CT/jg
Appeal No. 2003-0007
Application No. 29/092,219
Page 5
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC
39533 Woodward Avenue
Suite 140
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-0610