Source: http://ipmall.info/content/bpai-board-patent-appeals-and-interferences-patent-and-trademark-office-pto-1-ex-parte-21
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:38:03+00:00

Document:
Application for Design Patent filed July 27, 1989, Serial No. 07/224649. Icon for Softkey Display Screen or the Like.
The ornamental design for a softkey display or the like, as shown and described.
The sole claim stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 171. After careful consideration of appellant's arguments presented in the briefs and at oral hearing, we affirm the examiner's rejection.
claimed invention is an ornamental design for the display screen of a programmed computer system. A programmed computer system, comprising a processor, a display device and a program executing on the processor is an article of manufacture. The claimed design is surface ornamentation for a particular region of the display screen, and thus qualifies as statutory subject matter.
The fact that a programmed computer system running the necessary software may be an article of manufacture, does not help appellant here. No programmed computer system is either depicted or described. Section 1.152 [of 37 CFR] is explicit in requiring that the article of manufacture be shown in the drawings.
The respective positions of the examiner and appellant require us to consider the meaning of "ornamental design for an article of manufacture" as used in § 171.
The phrase "design for an article of manufacture" has long appeared in the design statutes. The language appears in Revised Statutes § 4929, May 9, 1902, ch. 783, 32 Stat. 209; was reenacted in 35 U.S.C. § 73 (1946) and again reenacted in 35 U.S.C. § 171 (1952). The CCPA construed the phrase in In re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 8 USPQ 19 (CCPA 1931). The court noted that the language "new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture encompassed at least three kinds of designs: 1) a design for an ornament, impression, print or picture to be applied to an article of manufacture (surface ornamentation); 2) a design for the shape or configuration of an article of manufacture; and 3) a combination of the first two categories. 46 F.2d at 209, 8 USPQ at 26. With respect to the first category the court indicated the design statute required more than a mere picture.
*2 We think that Assistant Commissioner Clay was right in saying [in Ex parte Cady, 1916 Dec. Com'r.Pat. 57, 58] that the design must be shown not to be the mere invention of a picture, irrespective of its manner of use, but that the applicant should be required to show by an appropriate drawing the manner of its application.
We find that appellant's claimed design, as disclosed in the application before us, is merely a picture. Appellant's specification does not show, describe or claim the design embodied in any article of manufacture. Only pictures of the icon are shown or described. The claimed subject matter, therefore, does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 171.
Appellant asserts that the design should be considered surface ornamentation upon the display screen of a computer system. We have no doubt that the claimed design, like all surface ornamentation-type designs, could be used to ornament a wide variety of articles, including computers. However, the phrase "design for an article of manufacture" in § 171 requires more than a depiction of the surface ornamentation alone. It requires disclosure of the ornamentation applied to or embodied in an article of manufacture. More than an applicant's generalized intent to ornament some article is required. It is the application of the design to an article which separates mere pictures from a design protectable by a patent. Without express disclosure of an article, the design is not an applied design contemplated for protection under § 171.
Appellant has not described, shown or claimed the design as surface ornamentation for a computer system. The word "icon" does not limit the design to use with a display screen of a computer or any other article of manufacture. Icons are and have been used with a variety of articles. As we stated above, appellant's design, as shown and described, is merely a picture which has not been disclosed applied to any article.
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter appellant regards as her invention. The phrase "or the like" renders the claim indefinite. It is not apparent from the record of this case what icons are "like" a softkey display. The specification does not provide any standards for determining the other icons which would fall within the scope of the claim. See, Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed.Cir.1984) (when words of degree are used in a claim, the specification must provide some standard for measuring the degree). A clear and definite statement of the article is important so that others may determine if the use of the design would directly infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271 or infringe only under the additional remedy of 35 U.S.C. § 289.
*4 If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner and this does not result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal, this case should be returned to us for final action on the affirmed refection, including any timely request for reconsideration thereof.
FN1. I, Janaia M. Donaldson, have invented a new, original and ornamental design for a ICON FOR SOFTKEY DISPLAY OR THE LIKE of which the following is a specification, reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming a part hereof.
Fig. 20 is a face view of an icon for a softkey display or the like showing a modified form of my new design in display mode.
FN2. The question of whether this design is "ornamental", as required by the statute, should be considered in any future prosecution of the present subject matter.

References: § 171
 § 171
 § 4929
 § 73
 § 171
 § 171
 § 171
 § 171
 § 112
 v. 
 § 271
 § 289