¶11. Patents <§=>43 — Application for design patent on tapering grip vacuum cleaner handle held properly denied for want of novelty.
¶2Application for design patent on tapering grip handle for vacuum cleaner held properly denied for want of novelty; substantially similar handle being shown by Kirby’s patent of June 10, 1913.
¶32. Evidence <©=19 — It is common knowledge that vacuum cleaner handle with inclined curve or straight grip is old in arts.
¶4It is within common knowledge that handle for vacuum cleaners with inclined curb or straight grip is old in the arts.
¶53. Patents <©=28 — Application for design patent on tapering grip vacuum cleaner handle held properly denied, as plainly utilitarian, not ornamental.
¶6Application for design patent on tapering grip handle for vacuum cleaner held properly de*568nied, as presenting no pleasing or ornamental effect to eye, but simply and plainly utilitarian.
¶7Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
¶8Application by Olo C. Willis for a patent. Prom a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying the application, the applicant appeals.
¶9Affirmed.
¶10A. L. Lawrence, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
¶11T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
¶12Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
¶14The appellant, Willis, claims to he the inventor of a new type or style of handle for a suction cl'eaner, and he has applied for a design patent therefor. The design is thus described in the application, to wit: “This design is characterized by a gradually tapering grip portion shaped to fit the hand and merging into an annular shoulder; said grip • portion being at an angle with the lower portion of the handle, to which is attached a mounting plate along its underside.”
¶15The application was denied by concurring decisions of the Patent Office, upon the ground that the design is not novel nor ornamental.
¶16[1-3] We think the application was rightly denied. A tapering grip handle substantially similar to applicant’s is shown .by reference to Kirby’s patent, issued June 10, 1913. In Clements v. Pittsburgh Electric Specialties Co. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 279, it is held that a handle with an inclined curve or straight grip is old for vacuum cleaners, and is not patentable. It is indeed well within common knowledge that such construction is old in the arts. Towne Steering Wheel Co. v. Lee (C. C. A.) 199 F. 777. We think that the present design presents no pleasing or 'ornamental effect to the eye, but is simply and plainly utilitarian. In this particular it differs from the articles involved in the Grigsby Case, 5 F.(2d) 117, 55 App. D. C. 294, and in the Drew Case, 4 F.(2d) 958, 55 App. D. C. 291.
¶17The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.