Legal Opinion
In re Nalbandian
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided October 15, 1981No. Appeal No. 80-615PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NIES, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the examiner of appellant’s application, serial No. 792,482, filed April 29,1977, for “Combined Tweezer and Spotlight.” We affirm.
Background
The claimed ornamental design is for an implement referred to as an illuminable tweezer. The primary reference on which the examiner and the board relied is U.S. Patent Des. 175,259, issued to Johnson et al. (Johnson) on August 2; 1955, also for an illuminable tweezer. The respective designs are…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- John K. Rains v. Cascade Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Schnading Corporation v. Gaines Manufacturing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Avia Group International, Inc., (Formerly Pensa, Inc.) v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- L.A. Gear, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Thom McAn Shoe Company and Melville Corporation and Pagoda Trading Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd., D/B/A Backyard Products Travis Products, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Petersen Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Central Purchasing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.