Case ID: f2d_34/html/1016-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LENROOT, Associate Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re HOPKINS.
    Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
    October 4, 1929.
    Patent Appeal No. 2128.
    Alba B. Marvin and George J. Hesselman, both of New York City, and Clarence M. Fisher and Richard K. Stevens, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    T. A. Hostetler, of Washington,. D. C., for appellee.
    Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
   LENROOT, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office, wherein the Board of Appeals affirmed the Primary Examiner in refusing the applicant a patent for his design covering a loud speaker, the claim for which reads as follows: “The ornamental design for a loud speaker, substantially as shown.”

The application was rejected upon the ground that the design here in question is not patentable over design patent to applicant No. 70,115, May 11,1926. Said patent discloses a loud speaker having an octagonal outline, whereas the application design here under consideration shows a circular outline. There is no other difference.

In order to sustain the application, we must find that the change of design from an octagonal sound hoard, covered by patent 70,115, to a circular sound board, is inventive in character. This we cannot do, and we agree with the Board of Appeals that the mere choice of one well-known geometric form rather than another equally well known, which does not in any way modify the other portions of the design, cannot support a patent.

The decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office is affirmed.

Affirmed.