Court Opinion

ID: 9475898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:42:09.767992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:01.105382
License: Public Domain

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
*383A design patent fills a particular niche in the gamut of intellectual property protection. The design must be for an article of manufacture and must be “new, original, and ornamental”. 35 U.S.C. § 171. All the provisions of Title 35 pertaining to utility patents apply, 35 U.S.C. § 171, except for a more limited priority right, 35 U.S.C. § 172, and patent term, 35 U.S.C. § 173.
In applying the pertinent law, the PTO and the courts confront the practical difficulty that arises when the design of an article of manufacture is not readily distinguished from the functional features of the article. The Board rejected the claimed design as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, on the basis that functional considerations “motivated” the design:
In our view, it would have been obvious to the designer of ordinary skill in the bottle cap art to place the centrally located flap of Painter at the base of a centrally located depression so as to prevent accidental striking of the flap and unintentional opening of the cap. Under such conditions, we are of the view that the artisan would have been motivated and would have found it obvious to combine the references in such a manner as to obtain the claimed invention.
Bd. op. at 3. The Board’s rejection is based on the statutory requirement that the claimed design must be ornamental. Indeed, as stated in In re Carletti, 328 F.2d 1020, 1022, 51 CCPA 1094, 1097, 140 USPQ 653, 654 (1964):
Many well-constructed articles of manufacture whose configurations are dictated solely by function are pleasing to look upon, for example a hexnut, a ball bearing, a golf club, or a fishing rod, the pleasure depending largely on one’s interests. But it has long been settled that when a configuration is the result of functional considerations only, the resulting design is not patentable as an ornamental design for the simple reason that it is not “ornamental” — was not created for the purpose of ornamenting, [citations omitted].
See also In re Garbo, 287 F.2d 192, 193-94, 48 CCPA 845, 848, 129 USPQ 72, 73 (1961)(“It is true ... that a design may embody functional features and still be patentable, but in order to attain this legal status under these circumstances, the design must have an unobvious appearance distinct from that dictated solely by functional considerations”).
A design derives its patentability from the novelty and originality of its ornamental component. Ornamentation may lie in the shape of the article of manufacture, as well as in an. arbitrary decoration upon it. See Gorham Manufacturing Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511, 525, 20 L.Ed. 731 (1872). A pleasing shape may serve the function of the article as well as a less pleasing one, and also serve the purpose of the design statute:
It is not reasonable to presume that Congress, in basing a patent right upon the ornamentation or beauty of a tool or mechanical device, intended that such beauty and ornamentation should be limited to such as is found in paintings, sculpture, and artistic objects, and which excites the aesthetic sense of artists alone.
In re Koehring, 37 F.2d 421, 422, 4 USPQ 169, 170 (CCPA 1930). Thus the design of a utilitarian article must be ornamental to meet the statutory requirements, and as a minimum the appearance — the design— must not be dictated solely by the function. In re Carletti, 328 F.2d at 1022, 51 CCPA at 1097, 140 USPQ at 654; Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H.G. Salzman, Inc., 302 F.2d 614, 618, 133 USPQ 96, 100 (2d Cir.1962).
In the case before us, the combination of the recess and the flapped opening was not asserted by the appellant to have been made for aesthetic purposes or to have any aesthetic qualities. Rather, appellant argues that since there is no aesthetic reason to make the combination, the combination is unobvious for design patent purposes. This reasoning could apply if the design itself were decorative, but here the design is prima facie utilitarian. The majority does not hold otherwise.
There is no error in the Board’s consideration of illustrations from utility patents *384showing the appearance of bottle caps, as the basis for its prima facie case of obviousness. See Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1441, 221 USPQ 97, 108 (Fed.Cir.1984).
A design patent is not a substitute for a utility patent. When the only distinctiveness of the claimed design is in its functional features, and ornamentation is not asserted or shown, the design does not meet the statutory requirements. The PTO has presented a prima facie case that the design of the claimed bottle cap, viewed as a whole, would have been obvious, based on the shape of the functional features shown in the cited references. See In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1217-18, 211 USPQ 782, 785-86 (CCPA 1981). Appellant has failed to rebut the prima facie case. I would affirm the decision of the Board.