In re Rosen

In re Rosen

Opinion

 [***348]   [*388]  Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER, and NIES, Associate Judges.

NIES, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection under 35 USC 103 of appellant's ¹  [*389]  design as claimed in application serial No. 875,918, filed February 7, 1978, for "Table." We reverse.

Background

The design involved in this appeal is for a low table (commonly called a coffee table) of contemporary styling as shown in Fig. 1:

[See Illustration In Original]

It is agreed that the top is transparent, and appellant alleges that the markings indicate that the legs are of a reflective material, such as stainless steel. The circular transparent top is supported by means of slots cut into the three V- or L-shaped legs.

The [**2]  examiner rejected the claimed design under 35 USC 103, citing a design patent to Rosen ² for a desk as the basic reference, and design patents to Klein et al. (Klein) ³ for a display stand and to Hysten ⁴ and Mudde ⁵ for tables to show that the modifications from Rosen would have been obvious.

The Rosen desk design shows a semi-circular top supported by V-shaped legs:

[See Illustration in Original]

The Klein reference, relied upon by the examiner for its showing that "in the furniture art, thin V-shaped leg members having a slot cut therein to receive a flat top portion is [***349]  well-known," descloses the following arrangement:

[See Illustration in Original]

Two table designs were cited to show that circular glass table tops and/or round tables are also well-known:

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