## Facts

- John O. Hruby, Jr. filed four design patent applications for a “Water Fountain,” each claiming “[t]he ornamental design for a water fountain as shown and described.”
- The drawings depicted the claimed design as streams and sheets of water in motion forming a particular decorative pattern.
- The fountain’s mechanical components (e.g., basin, nozzles, fountain-producing device) were shown in broken lines as environmental structure, indicating they were not claimed as part of the design.
- The examiner rejected the claims solely on the ground that the subject matter did not define an “article of manufacture” under 35 U.S.C. § 171.
- In split decisions, the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejections, despite recognizing that fountain water forms are commonly used decoratively and that the water shape is created by planned manipulation of water for decorative purposes.
- Hruby appealed; the four appeals were argued together and treated as presenting one legal question. No prior art was applied; patentability turned only on statutory subject matter.

## Issues

1. Whether a design consisting essentially of a planned, ornamental configuration of water in motion—while excluding the fountain hardware from the claim—qualifies as a design “for an article of manufacture” under 35 U.S.C. § 171.

## Decision

- The court reversed the Board’s rejections.
- It held that the claimed fountain designs, though visually embodied in water in motion, are designs for an “article of manufacture” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 171.
- The court treated the question as one of first impression and agreed that earlier cited decisions were not controlling.
- The case was remanded for any further examination unrelated to the statutory “article of manufacture” objection.

## Legal Principles

- For § 171, an “article of manufacture” may include an ornamental appearance produced through human control of a physical medium, even if the medium is fluid and in motion.
- A repeatable, identifiable decorative configuration created by intentional engineering and use of a raw material (here, water) can constitute a patent-eligible design when it yields a stable visual impression.
- The “article of manufacture” requirement in design patent law is applied with primary attention to the claimed ornamental appearance and its connection to a man-made, reproducible construct, rather than to categorical exclusions based on the material’s transitory character.

## Conclusion

A design claim directed to a fountain’s ornamental water pattern—created and repeatable through human-made fountain equipment—can satisfy § 171’s “article of manufacture” requirement, so rejection on the ground that moving water cannot be an article of manufacture was improper.


Application of Hruby, 373 F.2d 997 (C.C.P.A. 1967)