FLOS S.p.A.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2020

2019002498 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
35/500,407 10/01/2015 MICHAEL ANASTASSIADES 221005-1790 7685
24504 7590 10/26/2020
THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
SHIELDS, RHEA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2915
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ozzie.liggins@tkhr.com
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL ANASTASSIADES
____________________

Appeal 2019-002498
Application 35/500,407
Technology Center 2900
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject the single design claim pending in this
appeal.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies FLOS S.p.A. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002498
Application 35/500,407

2
BACKGROUND
The claim on appeal is “[t]he ornamental design for a table lamp as
shown and described.” Spec. 2.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sabernig US D625,879 S October 19, 2010
Lee US D670,424 S November 6, 2012
REJECTION
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Sabernig and Lee. Final Act. 2.
OPINION
The Examiner provides the following annotated illustration that
affords a visual comparison of figures from the claimed design (right),
Sabernig (top left), and Lee (bottom left).
Appeal 2019-002498
Application 35/500,407

3

Final Act. 3.
The Examiner construes the claimed design as “a light sphere or ball
placed off center on top of a short square platform.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner then finds that “Sabernig Fig. 1 shows a slightly
elongated ball placed off center on top of a slightly taller square platform;
having a design characteristic which is basically the same as that of the
claimed design.” Id. The Examiner further finds that the claimed design
differs from Sabernig in having a sphere on top of the platform. Id. The
Examiner finds, however, that Lee discloses a spherical ball light, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to replace Sabernig’s elongated
ball with Lee’s spherical ball “because the mere difference in geometric
shape cannot add novelty to a new design nor detract from the teaching of
Appeal 2019-002498
Application 35/500,407

4
the prior art.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). The Examiner further concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify the combined teachings of
Sabernig and Lee to have “a shorter square platform for the off center placed
sphere because the mere difference in dimension cannot add novelty to a
new design nor detract from the teaching of the prior art.” Id. (citation
omitted).
Appellant construes the claimed design as “a table lamp having a
vertically disposed square support element on which a spherical light
element is centered within the four edges of the support element, the light
element being centered within a vertical side of the support element.”
Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). Appellant argues, inter alia, that
Sabernig’s squat light element and Lee’s spherical light element each extend
beyond the edges of their respective bases, which would prohibit its base,
and thus the lamp, from being vertically positioned. Id. at 14–15.
The Examiner responds that “since Lee is a sphere the side of Lee
would not extend beyond the edges of the platform of Sabernig.” Ans. 9.
Here, Appellant has the better argument. While Sabernig and Lee
could, indeed, be combined to create a spherical light element on a square
base, we disagree with the Examiner’s determination that the light element,
simply by virtue of being spherical, would not extend beyond the edges of
the platform. There is simply no evidence to support this determination.
See, e.g., Lee, Figs. 4 and 7 (left side and bottom views of Lee’s lamp, in
which the spherical light element is seen to extend beyond the edges of the
platform); id. at Fig. 6 (top view of Lee’s lamp, in which the platform cannot
be seen underneath the spherical light element). Because the light elements
of both Sabernig and Lee extend beyond their respective bases, we agree
Appeal 2019-002498
Application 35/500,407

5
with Appellant that the resulting combination would more logically also
extend beyond the bases.
The Examiner also concludes that “mere differences in
circumference” are de minimis, insignificant, and immaterial when assessing
patentability here. Final Act. 4; Ans. 9 (“While the sphere in the claimed
design may rest within the edges of the base this difference in proportion of
the sphere with comparison to its base is de minimis.”). We disagree. Given
the simple forms of the respective designs presented by Appellant’s claim,
Sabernig, and Lee, we determine that the relative size of the light element
versus the base is a significant feature, not a de minimis feature, of the
overall appearance of each design.
Lacking evidence or reasoning why a skilled artisan would design a
lamp without the spherical light element overhanging the base, we do not
sustain the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1 103(a) Sabernig and Lee 1

REVERSED