Appeal No. 2000-1221
Application No. 29/070,030
re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir.
1993) stated,
[i]n ornamental design cases, a proper obviousness
rejection based on a combination of references
requires that the visual ornamental features (design
characteristics) of the claimed design appear in the
prior art in a manner which suggests such features
as used in the claimed design. If, however, the
combined teachings suggest only components of a
claimed design, but not its overall appearance, an
obviousness rejection is inappropriate [citations
omitted].
We note that, in contrast to the appellant's claimed
design and the Bonko '923 design, which include only a single
central raised portion associated with each pair of outer
raised portions, the Bonko '631 tire has a pair of aligned
central raised portions associated with each pair of outer
raised portions. Thus, even assuming that Bonko '631 would
have suggested to a tire designer of ordinary skill some
modification of the central raised portions of Bonko '923,
absent the appellant's own design, we are at a loss to know
why the ordinary designer would have singled out only the
alignment and not the number of central raised portions for
incorporation into the Bonko '923 design as the examiner
proposes. The incorporation in the Bonko '923 design of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007