Appeal No. 1999-2009 Page 4
Application No. 29/052,870
that there must be a single basic reference, a something in
existence, the design characteristics of which are basically
the same as the claimed design in order to support a holding
of obviousness. See In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29
USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rosen, 673 F.2d
388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982).
For purposes of this appeal, we will consider Figure 61
of Burr as the basic design reference, i.e., as a "Rosen"
reference even though the appellant argues (reply brief, pp.
4-5) that
Figure 61 of Morris does not have the basic design
characteristics as the claimed design.
At this point, we note that once such a basic design
reference is found, other references may be used to modify it
to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance
as the claimed design. See In re Harvey, 12 F.3d at 1063, 29
USPQ2d at 1208. These secondary references may only be used
to modify the basic design reference if they are so related to
the basic design reference that the appearance of certain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007