In re Walter, Patent Appeal No. 2277.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 2277. |
| Citation | 17 CCPA 982,39 F.2d 724 |
| Parties | In re WALTER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Wood & Wood, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Wm. R. Wood, of Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel), for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents rejecting the claim of appellant's design application for a bumperette.
The appealed claim is as follows: "The ornamental design for bumperette as shown."
The cited references are: Hurlbut, Design, 56233, Aug. 31, 1920; Simms, 814171, Mar., 6, 1906; Goetz. 1515734, Nov. 18, 1924.
Appellant's design consists in combining two slightly curved tubular impact members, connected in spaced relation by connecting straps. The ends of the tubular members are covered by plain cylindrical caps, and upon each of the straps midway between the two said members there is what appears to be the head of a bolt, much larger than necessary for any useful purpose.
The application was rejected by the three tribunals of the Patent Office, viz., the Examiner, the Board of Examiners in Chief, and the Commissioner, as lacking in invention. In view of this fact, appellant must make out a clear case of error to obtain a reversal. In re Beswick, 16 App. D. C. 345.
The design patent to Hurlbut shows an automobile bumper comprising two cylindrical or tubular members connected in spaced relation by connecting members. They are apparently spaced nearer together than in appellant's design, and the connections shown by Hurlbut are of curved metal, while appellant's connecting members are of flat metal. The Hurlbut design is of a front bumper extending the entire width of the car.
Simms and Goetz show curved bumpers designed to be attached to vehicles in positions to guard the lights, fenders, etc.
The Commissioner agreed with the Examiners in Chief that no invention was involved in modifying the design of Hurlbut in the customary way to adapt it for use as a bumperette, and said:
"It is believed that in view of the prior state of the art there does not exist in the appellant's article a distinctively new appearance created by inventive process and serving the purpose of embellishment; and, therefore, that the article is not patentable as a design. * * *"
The solicitor for the Patent Office does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickinson v. Zurko
...17 C.C.P.A. 891, 892, 38 F.2d 359, 360 (1930) In re Banner, 17 C.C.P.A. 1086, 1090, 39 F.2d 690, 692 (1930) In re Walter, 17 C.C.P.A. 982, 983, 39 F.2d 724, 724 (1930) Pengilly v. Copeland, 17 C.C.P.A. 1143, 1145, 40 F.2d 995, 996 (1930) Thompson v. Pettis, 18 C.C.P.A. 755, 757, 44 F.2d 420......
-
Dickinson v Zurko
...17 C. C. P. A. 891, 892, 38 F.2d 359, 360 (1930) In re Banner, 17 C. C. P. A. 1086, 1090, 39 F.2d 690, 692 (1930) In re Walter, 17 C. C. P. A. 982, 983, 39 F.2d 724, 724 (1930) Pengilly v. Copeland, 17 C. C. P. A. 1143, 1145, 40 F.2d 995, 996 (1930) Thompson v. Pettis, 18 C. C. P. A. 755, 7......
-
In re Faustmann
...that: "It is not enough that a design be new, original, and ornamental. It must be also the result of the inventive faculty. In re Walter, 39 F.2d 724, 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in Knapp v. Will & Baumer Co., 273 F. 380, 381, had before it the quest......
-
Application of Johnson
...of the inventive faculty was present in the production of a design before a patent will be granted covering the design. See In re Walter, 39 F.2d 724, 17 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 982; In re Staun, 53 F.2d 545, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 713; In re Griffith, 86 F.2d 405, 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 713; In re......