Cambridge Manage-ment Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2000

No. 75291485 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2000)

Paper No. 12
S/jmp
8/24/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Cambridge Management Corporation
________
Serial No. 75/291,485
_______
Lawrence J. Marhoefer of Lane, Aitken & McCann for
Cambridge Management Corporation.
John Tingley, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Hairston, and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Cambridge Management Corporation (applicant) has
appealed from the final refusal of the Trademark Examining
Attorney to register the mark “VISION EXPERT” for computer
processors and computer software to perform real time,
computationally intensive processing of data in order to
create images representative of the data.1 The Examining
Attorney has refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of

1 Application Ser. No. 75/291,485, filed May 14, 1997. In the
application, filed pursuant to Section 1(b)of the Act, 15 USC
§1051(b), applicant asserts that it has a bona fide intention to
use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/291,485
2
the Act, 15 USC §1052(e)(1), arguing that the mark VISION
EXPERT is merely descriptive of a feature of an imaging
system with an “expert system” knowledge data. Applicant
and the Examining Attorney have submitted briefs, but no
oral hearing was requested. We reverse.
Relying upon a computer dictionary definition of the
phrase “expert system”,2 the Examining Attorney argues that
applicant’s mark merely describes an expert system as part
of its computer processors and computer software in that
this system contains a knowledge base of data interfaced
with VISION EXPERT software programs to perform vision and
image processing solutions. Brief, 4. The Examining
Attorney argues that applicant’s goods perform imaging
solutions such as robotic vision, medical imaging and other
real time vision imaging solutions. According to the
Examining Attorney, the words here sought to be

2 The Computer Glossary (7th Ed.) defines “expert system” as:
An AI application that uses a knowledge
base of human expertise for problem
solving. Its success is based on the
quality of the data and rules obtained from
the human expert. In practice, expert
systems perform both below and above that
of a human. An expert system contains a
knowledge base of if-then-else rules that
are processed through an inference engine
(software) that uses a variety of
techniques to obtain the result.
Ser. No. 75/291,485
3
registered are merely a combination of highly descriptive
terms which together merely describe a feature of
applicant’s computer software, even to technical
professionals.
The file reveals the following information about
applicant’s goods.
Vision Expert from Cambridge Parallel
Processing is a powerful COTS real-time
vision processing solution. It combines
the super-performance of CPP’S Gamma II
PlusJ vision and image processing work-
station, with Vision Expert’s ToolboxJ
data visualization, exploration simulation
and solution creation environment. This
unique combination of power and simplicity
enables the development of a wide range of
advanced applications for non-destructive
testing, SAR, ATR, robotic vision, medical
imaging, and other demanding super-performance
vision solutions.
Applicant contends that the word “VISION” has a number
of meanings while the word “EXPERT” means one with a
special skill or knowledge in a particular subject.
According to applicant, while the term “expert system” has
a particular meaning when used with computer systems, the
term “EXPERT” alone does not have any meaning in connection
with these goods. Applicant maintains that the mark VISION
EXPERT is indefinite and susceptible to multiple meanings
to technical professionals who are potential purchasers of
applicant’s goods.
Ser. No. 75/291,485
4
A term is merely descriptive within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately describes an ingredient,
quality, characteristic or feature of the goods or services
or if it directly conveys information regarding the nature,
function, purpose or use of the goods or services. In re
Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18
(CCPA 1978). Whether a term is merely descriptive is
determined, not in the abstract, but in relation to the
goods or services for which registration is sought, the
context in which it is being used on or in connection with
the goods or services and the possible significance that
the term would have to the average purchaser of those goods
or services. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593
(TTAB 1979).
After careful consideration of this record and the
arguments, we believe the mark “VISION EXPERT” does not
immediately and clearly describe applicant’s real-time
imaging system or a feature or attribute of that system.
It seems to us that, as applied to applicant’s goods, the
mark requires some imagination or thought in order to
determine the nature of the goods. While images are
created through use of applicant’s goods, which include a
vision and image processing workstation, we do not believe
that the Examining Attorney has persuasively shown that the
Ser. No. 75/291,485
5
mark VISION EXPERT is merely descriptive of applicant’s
computer processors and computer software. At most,
applicant’s asserted mark is suggestive of the goods.
Decision: The refusal of registration is reversed.
R. L. Simms
P. T. Hairston
C. M. Bottorff
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board