Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/In re Bonnell

In re Bonnell

129 F.2d 520, 29 C.C.P.A. 1104, 54 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 202, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 72
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJune 15, 1942
DocketNo. 4612
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 129 F.2d 520 (In re Bonnell) 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
In re Bonnell, 129 F.2d 520, 29 C.C.P.A. 1104, 54 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 202, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 72 (ccpa 1942).

Opinion

Garrett, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In the application here involved appellant seeks patent for a design for “Floor Base Molding or Similar Article.” The appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection of the single claim hy the examiner in view of prior' art, the references cited below being two patents, viz.:

Gardner, 808,312, November 18, 1884.
Wilson, 2,030,73o! February 11, 1936.

We here reproduce figure 1 of appellant’s drawing, figure 1 of the Gardner patent, and.figure 3 of the Wilson patent. [See p. 1105.]

The- claim involved reads: “The ornamental design for a Floor Base -Molding or similar article, as shown.” The drawing of the application, it will be observed, has no numerals or other indicia of structural features, but shows what is stated to be a one-piece article concave in configuration having ridges on its convex side. When placed in permanent position the ridges are concealed.

The molding of the Gardner patent is primarily for covering the angle formed by the junction of wall and ceiling. It consists of two strips A and A' connected by a web, B. The part marked a' is a head so arranged that hooks may be attached from which pictures and the like may be hung.

The molding strip of the Wilson patent- is of metal material in one piece. It seems to have been designed primarily for use on the edges of furniture, such as tables and the like.

[1105]*1105

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

Related

Application of Don L. Rubinfield
270 F.2d 391 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1959)
In re Rubinfield
270 F.2d 391 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1959)
Matter of the Application of Linus E. Russell
239 F.2d 387 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1956)
In re Russell
239 F.2d 387 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1956)
Application of Campbell
212 F.2d 606 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1954)
Talge v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
48 F. Supp. 723 (W.D. Missouri, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 F.2d 520, 29 C.C.P.A. 1104, 54 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 202, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bonnell-ccpa-1942.