Court Opinion

ID: 9445271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:24:24.425359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:11.687508
License: Public Domain

HASTIE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I think the' district court’s finding of invention in this case was clearly erroneous. We all agree that,' in the language of the- majority opinion, “the granting of a design patent * * * [must be based upon] invention of a new, original and ornamental design non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” My disagreement is based upon the belief that plaintiff’s design cannot be reasonably said to meet that standard. The Disney figures and many- other prior art caricatures of rabbits, ducks, squirrels and lambs were before the district court and are before us. In one or two cases plaintiff’s -design approximates earlier figures almost as closely as would a copy. All of plaintiff’s designs are so similar to earlier caricatures as to' suggest that what plaintiff has done would necessarily be obvious to any-draftsman familiar with recent developments in that field; and the record contains no testimony, expert or otherwise, to in- • dicate any distinctive characteristics dif- ’ ferentiating plaintiff’s- designs significantly from other familiar caricatures of the same animals.
In' this view of the matter I cannot see how plaintiff’s figures can reasonably be said to exhibit inventive variation from what was already, familiar. It seems to me — and I think plaintiff’s testimony is to the same effect — that what plaintiff contributed here was a very good merchandising idea, naniely, that caricatures of animals such as had proved attractive in other fields would also make edible chocolate animals sell better. But' the reduction of. that idea,to practice was not invention.
I would reverse the judgment.