Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.

Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.

Opinion

 [*1270]  Moore, Chief Judge.

Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, and Trinity Manufacturing, LLC (collectively, Appellants) appeal two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that Appellants did not demonstrate the claimed designs of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645 would have been obvious over U.S. Design Patent No. D405,622 (Linz) or U.S. Patent No. 4,909,578 (Abbate). Because the claimed designs would have been obvious over Linz, we reverse.

Background

A. The Claimed Designs

Gamon Plus, Inc., owns the '646 and '645 patents, which each claim "[t]he ornamental design for a gravity feed dispenser display, as shown and described." J.A. 155; J.A. 158. The sole figure of the '646 patent depicts the following:

 [*1271]  

Many [**2]  features in the above figure are drawn using broken lines, which, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.152, means they "represent the article in which the claimed design is embodied, but . . . form[ ] no part of the claimed design." '646 patent at Description. Omitting those features from the above figure reveals that the '646 patent's claimed design is limited to what the parties refer to as the label area, cylindrical object, and stops:

 [*1272]  J.A. 1113 (annotations added).

The '645 patent's sole figure is nearly identical to the '646 patent's figure, differing in only two respects. First, the top and bottom edges of the cylindrical object and the stops are shown in broken lines, which, again, means they "form[ ] no part of the claimed design." '645 patent at Description. Second, there is a small circle, also shown in broken lines, near the middle of the label area. Id. at Figure. Omitting these features from the '645 patent's figure yields the following:

J.A. 357 (annotations added).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.