Appeal No. 98-2888
Application No. 29/044,927
existence, the design characteristics of which are basically
the same as the claimed design; once a reference meets this
test, reference features may reasonably be interchanged with
or added from those in other pertinent references. In re
Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982).
The essence of the examiner’s rejection is that Wooster
is a Rosen reference, that is, the device disclosed in Wooster
has design characteristics which are basically the same as the
claimed design, and that a designer of ordinary skill in these
articles would have found it obvious to alter the sleeve and
the head that holds the disk in such a fashion as to render
the claimed design obvious, in view of the showing of DuBe.
The appellants argue that Wooster is not a Rosen reference
and, even if it were, the references are not so related as to
have suggested application of the DuBe features to the Wooster
design. They also urge that the design resulting from
combining the two references would lack some of the features
of the claimed design.
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellants that
Wooster does not constitute a Rosen reference in view of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007