Application of Elaine Lustig

368 F.2d 1019, 54 C.C.P.A. 840
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 1, 1966
DocketPatent Appeal 7672
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 1019 (Application of Elaine Lustig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Application of Elaine Lustig, 368 F.2d 1019, 54 C.C.P.A. 840 (ccpa 1966).

Opinions

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

Lustig seeks to patent:

The ornamental design for a font of type or the like, substantially as shown.

The application was rejected by the examiner, affirmed by the Board of Appeals, on the ground that appellant’s font was “an obvious modification” of the Smith font.1

[1020]*1020The following !e by side comparison clearly supports the decision below:

LUSTIG ABCDEFGH

SMITH ABCDEFGH

LUSTIG IJKLMNOP

SMITH IJKLMNOP

LUSTIG STUVWXYZ

SMITH STUVWXYZ

LUSTIG bcdhiklnopr

SMITH bcdhiklnopr

LUSTIG suvxz 389

SMITH suvxz 389

[1021]*1021In her brief here appellant states that

The font of type of the present invention is characterized by a “boldness” which results from the fact that:
(a) the strokes of the letters are of an almost even weight and thus there is hardly any contrast between the thick and the thin strokes;
(b) the serifs 2 of the letters are best described as being slabs of heavy weight which continue the bold stroke of the rest of the letters and give the impression of an equal weight throughout; and
(c) the bold serifs are slightly rounded where they meet the verticals.
The “boldness” which characterizes the over-all appearance and theme of the present alphabet was recognized by both the Board of Appeals and the Examiner.

We are equally cognizant of the minor differences appellant relies on, and equally certain they do not reflect differences which would be unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judge RICH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Judge MARTIN participated in the hearing but died before a decision was reached. By agreement of counsel, Judge KIRKPATRICK participated in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hadco Products, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Company
462 F.2d 1265 (Third Circuit, 1972)
Application of Elaine Lustig
368 F.2d 1019 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1966)
In re Lustig
368 F.2d 1022 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
368 F.2d 1019, 54 C.C.P.A. 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-elaine-lustig-ccpa-1966.