Ex parte SHEEHAN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 5, 1998

07715257 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 5, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 14, 1991.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte THOMAS M. SHEEHAN, EDWARD P. REGAN
and JAMES B. WILLIAMS
__________
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,2571
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before FRANKFORT, KRASS and WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
the only claim pending:
The ornamental design for A COMPUTER DISPLAY as shown and
described.
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
2
The claim was amended to read as such in an amendment
filed December 19, 1996 (Paper No. 10). As originally filed,
the claim read as follows:
The ornamental design for a JOB MANAGER ICON FOR A
COMPUTER DISPLAY OR THE LIKE as shown and described.
There are no references relied on by the examiner.
The sole claim on appeal stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, as relying on an inadequate written
description, the examiner contending that the proposed drawing
amendment (filed May 24, 1993) of a rectangular display screen
in broken lines around the previously depicted icon
constitutes new matter as there is inadequate support for a
computer display screen in the application as originally
filed.
The claim stands further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 as
being directed to nonstatutory subject matter regarding design
claims.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
Those drawings depict the icon on a display screen of a2
computer, the computer processor and the video monitor having
the display screen being all in dotted lines.
3
OPINION
We affirm.
The controlling case for the issue presented under § 171
is Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d 1259 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1992) wherein it was held that icons, of the type of interest
herein, per se, are not protectable by design patent because
37 CFR 1.152 and 1.153(a), consistent with 35 U.S.C. 171,
require that the design must be applied to an article of
manufacture since the “factor which distinguishes statutory
design subject matter from mere picture or surface
ornamentation per se (i.e., abstract designs) is the
embodiment of the design in an article of manufacture.”
Strijland, 26 USPQ2d at 1262.
The majority in Strijland went further and, in dicta,
stated, 26 USPQ2d at 1263,
Had appellants’ specification, as originally filed,
included the language added by the above referred to
amendment, and included drawings of the type shown in the
addendum to this opinion , we would have held that the claimed2
design is statutory subject matter, and the design would have
been patentable in the absence of other grounds of rejection.
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
This claim would also be properly rejectable under 353
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth in
Strijland, at 26 USPQ2d 1262 regarding the language “OR THE
LIKE.” The examiner withdrew this rejection in light of
appellants’ amendment of December 19, 1996.
4
While not having the force of law, this dicta was the
subject of the Guidelines for Examination of Design Patent
Applications for Computer-Generated Icons (Guidelines), 1185
O.G. 60 (April 16, 1996) and incorporated into MPEP 1504.01.
Since an icon, per se, as depicted in the instant case,
as originally filed, is a mere picture, not part of any
embodiment of an article of manufacture, the examiner quite
properly, and in accordance with Strijland and the Guidelines,
rejected the design claim for “The ornamental design for a JOB
MANAGER ICON FOR A COMPUTER DISPLAY OR THE LIKE as shown and
described” as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. 171. 3
Unfortunately for appellants, Strijland was decided after
the filing of this application. So, in a valiant effort to
comply with Strijland and the Guidelines, appellants amended
the claim to read, “The ornamental design for A COMPUTER
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
5
DISPLAY as shown and described.” Further, appellants amended
the description of the drawings and entered a disclaimer into
the specification regarding broken line illustrations in the
drawings. Most importantly, appellants amended the drawings
to show broken lines around the original depiction of the
icon.
The examiner contends that such amendments constitute new
matter and that there is no support in the original disclosure
for that which is now claimed, within the meaning of the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph.
Appellants contend that there is adequate support since
the original disclosure specified that the Job Manager Icon is
“for a computer display” and that the original disclosure of a
“computer display” should constitute adequate support for that
which is now claimed.
We agree with the examiner [answer-page 5] that the mere
mention of a “computer display” could “mean a multiplicity of
visual representations--a three dimensional computer monitor,
a display on a photocopier, a display on a dashboard of an
automobile, a display on an automatic teller machine, a narrow
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
6
display screen, a large display screen, a circular screen, a
curved screen, etc.” Thus, there is no support for an icon
embodied in the article of manufacture now attempted to be
shown by appellants with broken lines. There is no evidence
that appellants had possession of the particular design, i.e.,
the job manager icon embodied in a screen in the particular
manner shown by the amended drawings, at the time of filing
the application. For the reasons given by the examiner at
pages 4-11 of the answer, which we adopt as our own, we will
sustain the rejection of the design claim under 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph.
As an additional reason for sustaining this rejection, we
note that the evidence indicates that at the time of filing
the original application, appellants had no intention of
disclosing or claiming a computer display with a job manager
icon, but, rather, appellants were interested only in
obtaining protection for the design of the icon, itself. We
note the title of the application, “Job Manager Icon For a
Computer Display” [emphasis ours]. Thus, the display, itself,
and/or the icon’s relationship with such display appears to
have been of no interest to appellants. It was clearly the
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
7
icon, itself, for use with or on a computer display, which was
of interest. The original claim, too, was for a “JOB MANAGER
ICON” which was only “FOR” a computer display. Thus, again,
the display was never intended, in the original disclosure, to
form any part of the invention. The originally disclosed and
claimed design was clearly for the icon, per se, and not for
any embodiment of that icon in a display as an article of
manufacture. We find that there clearly was no disclosure in
the specification, as originally filed, for the now claimed
design for a computer display.
Because we sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claim
under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the broken lines around
the icon in the drawings do constitute new matter and are not
permissible. Accordingly, with the original drawings then
before us, the design claim is clearly drawn to an icon, per
se and such a claim, under Strijland, is directed to
nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. Accordingly,
we also sustain the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C.
171.
Moreover, we note that the panel in Strijland indicated
that the claimed design therein would have been deemed to
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
8
constitute statutory subject matter had the icon been embodied
in the display of a computer, showing the computer and the
video monitor (having the display with the icon shown thereon)
in broken lines. While this was mere dicta, and we are not
bound thereby, we would note that whereas the suggested
embodiment therein was at least directed to a computer system,
showing the computer processor and the video monitor in broken
line, wherein the icon was clearly shown on the display of a
computer, this is a far cry from appellants’ attempted
amendment, placing a mere broken line rectangle around the
icon, wherein the rectangle, albeit said to represent a
computer display, may, in reality, represent almost anything,
including, for example, a sheet of paper on which the icon is
placed. Quite clearly, a sheet of paper having the icon
imprinted thereon would not constitute patentable subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. A simple, broken, rectangular
line placed around an icon, in our view, does not constitute
an embodiment of the icon design in an article of manufacture.
In this regard, we direct attention to Strijland, at 26 USPQ2d
1263, wherein that panel of the Board indicated that:
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
9
It should be noted, however, we do not think
that merely illustrating a picture displayed on the
screen of a computer or other display device, such
as a television or movie screen, is sufficient,
alone, to convert a picture into a design for an
article of manufacture. Mere display of a picture
on a screen is not significantly different, in our
view, from the display of a picture on a piece of
paper. Only the medium of display is different.
Note, also, the special concurrence by Examiner-in-Chief
Stahl, at 12 USPQ2d 1264-1266.
We have sustained both the rejection under 35
U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
171.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 98-1690
Application No. 07/715,257
11
Ronald Zibelli
Xerox Corporation
Xerox Square 020
Rochester, NY 14644