| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 85316511 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 110 |
| MARK SECTION | |
| MARK | http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/ImageAgent/ImageAgentProxy?getImage=85316511 |
| LITERAL ELEMENT | SMARTCABLE 3D |
| STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES |
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES |
| MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
The applicant, Quartics, Inc. (“Applicant”) respectfully requests that the examining attorney withdraw the descriptiveness refusal of the SMARTCABLE 3D application. Video accessory cables are not in the class of products that consumers would expect to be automated or have a microprocessor, and thus they are not “smart” in any descriptive sense. Moreover, the examining attorney has submitted no evidence that Applicant’s cables, or video cables in general, “incorporate smart technology,” or what exactly that phrase means with respect to video cables. Applicant submits that this case is analogous to In re Pointcast Inc., 1999 WL 651584, *3 (TTAB 1999), in which the Board held that SMARTSCREEN was not merely descriptive because there was no evidence that the applicant’s screen saver program was the type of product that contained a microprocessor or had any automated features. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests that the examining attorney withdraw the preliminary refusal, and approve this application to be published.
|
|
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Keith Toms/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Keith Toms |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney at Saunders & Silverstein LLP, counsel for Applicant |
| DATE SIGNED | 02/29/2012 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Wed Feb 29 16:40:26 EST 2012 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XX-2 0120229164026423666-85316 511-4906bb6132a8fa2b9974b 1fcc7516c2ebb2-N/A-N/A-20 120229163747301988 |
| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017) |
The applicant, Quartics, Inc. (“Applicant”) respectfully requests that the examining attorney withdraw the descriptiveness refusal of the SMARTCABLE 3D application. Video accessory cables are not in the class of products that consumers would expect to be automated or have a microprocessor, and thus they are not “smart” in any descriptive sense. Moreover, the examining attorney has submitted no evidence that Applicant’s cables, or video cables in general, “incorporate smart technology,” or what exactly that phrase means with respect to video cables.
Applicant submits that this case is analogous to In re Pointcast Inc., 1999 WL 651584, *3 (TTAB 1999), in which the Board held that SMARTSCREEN was not merely descriptive because there was no evidence that the applicant’s screen saver program was the type of product that contained a microprocessor or had any automated features.
Thus, Applicant respectfully requests that the examining attorney withdraw the preliminary refusal, and approve this application to be published.