3attorney have filed briefs
and the Board conducted ahearing on April 20, 2011. We affirm the refusal toregister.
The Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court, hasstated that “the greater the degree of descriptiveness theterm has, the heavier the burden to prove it has attainedsecondary meaning.”
In Re Bongrain Int'l (Am.) Corp
., 894F.2d 1316, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1728 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Theexamining attorney and applicant disagree on the degree ofdescriptiveness of the applied-for term. Thus, we beginour analysis with a determination of the degree ofdescriptiveness of the term in relation to the goodsidentified in the application.
The examining attorney maintains that “multi-touch” is“highly descriptive” and identifies a type of touchscreeninterface which “allows a user to manipulate and controlthe functions of an electronic device by using more than
Applicant submitted with its brief a copy of most, if not all,of the evidence it submitted during the prosecution of itsapplication. The Board prefers not to have duplicates ofmaterial already submitted; it merely adds to the bulk of therecord and wastes the time of Board staff in handling or scanningthe papers and the time of the judges in reviewing the additionalpapers.
Applicant did not contest the Section 2(e)(1) determination inits brief, thus, applicant has waived any argument that the markis not merely descriptive. The only issue presented in thisappeal is whether the evidence of record is sufficient to supportapplicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).