properly applied the unambiguous language of Sec. 103 to the resolution of the issue presented. The rejected claims relate to a photocomposing machine which for the most part is shown in Broadbent. Such machines in general are devices for selectively projecting images of letters or other characters on a light sensitive film to obtain a series of photographs of individual letters or characters in the particular sequence desired. A light transparent image of the character to be photographed is placed between a light source and the film to be exposed and a shutter is actuated to make the exposure. The characters to be thus recorded on the light sensitive film may be sequentially changed in two general ways, either by mechanically moving the transparencies, or by optically focusing the different, stationary transparencies on the same point. Applicant pursued the optical method. In essence, such a machine includes a character plate and a set of shutters for selectively exposing any desired character, a light source for illuminating the characters, a film holding member and a lens system to direct and transmit the image rays from the exposed character and focus them on a screen from which the image is transmitted to the light sensitive film. Rejected claim 21 is the base claim from which all of the rejected claims depend. It is essentially a five element claim as will be seen from the following in which we have set out each element separately. 21. In a photocomposing machine for producing a photographic film with a series of type lines for use in printing, the combination of a stationary flat font plate comprising an array of character transparencies adequate for text composition and representative of the different characters which make up a type font of some given point size, said character transparencies being located in different photographic positions on the font plate but arranged in the same fixed plane, means under selective control for projecting light rays from a series of character transparencies, one after another but only one at a time, in composing successive type lines, a plurality of collimating lenses, one for each character transparency in the font array, for rendering the light rays from the different selected character transparencies substantially parallel, said collimating lenses having the same focal length and a common focal plane, and the optical axes of said collimating lenses being substantially parallel and uniformly located with respect to the different character transparencies notwithstanding the varying set widths of the type characters which said transparencies represent, the font plate and the collimating lens assembly being parallel to each other and spaced apart at a fixed distance equal to the common focal length of the collimating lenses, whereby the focal plane of the collimating lenses coincides with the fixed plane in which the character transparencies are arranged, an image forming lens common to all of the character transparencies in the font array and having a usable area at least as great as the area of all the collimating lenses so that the parallel light rays transmitted by all of the collimating lenses will impinge upon the usable area of the image forming lens; said image forming lens thus being adapted to produce, one at a time, complete individual images of the different character transparencies, as they are successively projected for line composition, at a common predetermined position relative to the optical axis of the image forming lens, and a light sensitive film upon which the images thus successively produced by the image forming lens are recorded, one after another, in line formation in the order in which they are produced at said common predetermined position. Claim 22 differs from claim 21 by providing for a removable font plate. Claim 23 specifies a single source of light and a shutter mechanism which allows exposure of only one character at a time. Claim 24 adds a honey-comb-like element to channel the light between the character transparencies and the collimating lenses. Broadbent discloses a photocomposing machine very similar to that claimed by appellants. Corresponding to appellants' "stationary flat font plate comprising an array of character transparencies," Broadbent has "a frame designed to hold a number of partly transparent negatives or positives of type or other characters." Whatever differences there are between the two as to the font plates merely reflect the broader language used by appellants, and do not distinguish the two. In order to project those characters on to the photographic film, appellants require "means under selective control for projecting light rays from a series of character transparencies," but Broadbent is more specific describing "separate shutters to enable the negatives or positives to be exposed individually to allow one or more illuminants to penetrate the negative or positive, or it may be made with separate compartments each containing the necessary illuminant for the negative or positive." In claim 23, appellants limit themselves to an undefined shutter system. But again appellants say nothing which could distinguish their exposure-controlling structure from Broadbent's. Like Broadbent, appellants also project their characters onto a light sensitive film. Appellants attribute the success and practicability of their machine to the essential concept of projecting the images of stationary transparencies to a single focal point by optical means alone. For that idea, they are again indebted to Broadbent, who states it in the following, various ways: "***negatives or positives of type or other characters so arranged as to be brought by means of lens or lenses to a concentric focus," or "*** the image of the character will be projected by light to a concentric focus," or again "*** each character having an optical system whereby all the characters are projected to a common focus * The difficulty with Broadbent's structure is suggested in the last excerpt quoted. While it may be said that appellants' characters each have an optical system also, Broadbent carried the idea to the extreme of having separate optical means for each individual character. Broadbent used an imaging lens and a prism, each appropriately shaped, for each character, so that the image of each would be focused at the same point. Appellants apparently found that complex system impractical. A different, simpler, practical system for focusing all the images at one point was needed. Here is where the Carlton et al. patent (hereafter referred to as Carlton) becomes important. Carlton discloses "*** a compact, efficient optical device *** whereby light from a plurality of sources can be combined at a single focal point ***” Carlton's device when adapted to a photocomposing machine provided the solution to the problem of perfecting Broadbent's machine. Carlton discloses a series of television picture tubes spatially arranged so that the faces of the tubes are in a single plane. In a parallel plane, and opposite each television tube are collimating lenses which will project the light from the tubes in parallel rays to a large imaging lens, which is common to all of the tubes and their collimating lenses. Of course, the tubes and the collimating lenses are separated by a distance equal to the focal length of the lenses. Carlton intended to project identical images simultaneously to produce on a screen an image of enhanced brightness. The only novelty to be found in the invention as claimed in the rejected claims is in essence the placement of the lens system of Carlton in the photocomposing machine of Broadbent. Appellants argue that the two references cannot properly be combined, and they base their argument on two contentions. First, they assert, their optical system is not identical in every respect with Carlton's and their light source, font plate, and shutter mechanism are not identical in every respect with Broadbent's. Since both references would have to be altered in order to arrive at their machine, as claimed, they argue it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references. Second, they contend that since the Carlton reference is not in the photocomposing machine art, it cannot properly be combined with Broadbent as a basis for rejection. While the rejected claims are not identically disclosed or described in terms by either Broadbent or Carlton, Sec. 103 provides in such a situation that "A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title," if the difference would have been "obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill" in the relevant art. 629594-63- -3 It is our view that a person having ordinary skill in the photocomposing machine art at the time appellants' invention was made should properly be expected to know and understand the optical requirements of such a machine to the extent that it would be obvious for him to apply the Carlton lens system to the Broadbent machine. For the foregoing reasons we affirm the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 103. 292 F.2d 304; 130 USPQ 227 OMEGA LOUIS BRANDT & FRERE, S.A. v. SIMON GOLUB & SONS, INC. (No. 6705) TRADEMARKS 1. IDENTITY AND SIMILARITY-How DETERMINED APPEARANCE, MEANING OR SOUND-IDENTITY AND SIMILARITY-WORDS-NOT "Omichron" does not so resemble "Omega" as to be likely, when applied to watches, to cause purchaser confusion, even though marks both are, for practical purposes, names of letters of Greek alphabet. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, July 21, 1961 1 Appeal from Patent Office, Opposition No. 38,634 [Affirmed.] Chauncey P. Carter for appellant. Albert H. Kirchner for appellee. [Oral argument May 17, 1961, by Mr. Carter and Mr. Kirchner] Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK* Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Appellant opposes registration of the mark "Omichron" by appellee. From a decision of the Trademark Trail and Appeal Board dismissing the opposition (125 USPQ 351) appellant appeals. Appellant's mark is "Omega." Appellee's mark is for "Watches" and appellant's mark is for "Watch-Movements and Watchcases" and for "Watches and Parts Thereof." The goods being in part identical, the single issue here is whether applicant's mark so resembles 1 Released November 2, 1961. Serial No. 39,058 filed Oct. 17, 1957. 3 Reg. No. 25,036, issued July 24, 1894; twice renewed. Reg. No. 566,370 issued Nov. 4, 1952. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294 (d), Title 28, United States Code. opposer's registered mark as to be likely when applied to applicant's watches "to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers." Appellant urges in its brief that the marks being used on identical goods are likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers because: A. Both marks are 3-syllable marks. B. The first 2 letters of each mark are OM C. The first syllable of each mark may be pronounced identically and are identical except for the substitution of the vowel "i" for the vowel “e”. D. The last syllable of the appellee's mark is admittedly the Greek word for TIME which is generic as to timepieces as, for instance in CHRONOGRAPH and CHRONOMETER. E. Appellant's mark is the name of a Greek letter and so far as the record shows is the only name of a Greek letter in use as a trademark for watches or other timepieces. F. Appellee's mark is except for a silent "h"-identical with the name of another Greek letter. Such other Greek letter is the equivalent of the "o" in "obey" whereas appellant's Greek letter is the equivalent of the "o" in "tone" and these two Greek letter names resemble each other more in appearance, sound, meaning, and phonetic value than either resembles any other Greek letter name (R. 23). G. Both appellant's and appellee's watches are made in Switzerland. H. Appellant's trademark is admitted by appellee to be one of the best known watch trademarks in the world so that appellee must have had knowledge of same when it adopted its mark. I. There is no evidence as to the mimimum price of appellant's watches under $100.00 and none whatsoever as to the price of appellee's watches. J. Both parties use the marks on the dials of small wrist watches in very small type and in association with the word SWISS. K. Appellant features OMEGA CHRONOMETER watches which facilitates substitution of an OMICHRON watch. We have considered each of the reasons advanced by appellant but are of the opinion that the mark OMICHRON (and its substantial equivalent, the Greek word "Omicron") have nothing in common with appellant's mark OMEGA except that: 1. Both have three syllables. 2. Both begin with the letters OM. 3. Both are the names of Greek letters. 4. The English letter equivalent “O” is used as the initial letter in both marks although this letter is pronounced differently in the two words, Omega employing the long “O” and Omicron employing the short "O." [1] We have given full consideration to the similarities involved but think the only ground of alleged similarity which requires discussion here is that based on the contention that the two marks are likely to be confusing because both are, for practical purposes, the names of letters of the Greek alphabet. We agree with, appellee's answer to this contention, as stated in its brief in the form of an argument of a dilemma, as follows: |