In re Rutledge

Appellant applied for a patent for a design for stockings. The application was denied by the examiner upon three grounds:

First, that the design, or shape, of the stocking was believed to have a mechanical function as its chief purpose, viz, to make the anide seem slender; second, it was thought that the stockings when on display on the counter are folded in such a manner as that the ordinary observer would not see the full design and hence there would be lacking “ the effect upon the eye,” an essential of patenta-bility under design patent law; and, third, upon prior art as shown in patents…