Appeal No. 2000-2183
Application No. 29/082,343
of Vance, the primary reference, each consist, from an
appearance standpoint, of two basic elements: a crown, and a
band encircling the bottom (opening) of the crown. As stated
in the above-quoted basis of the rejection, the examiner finds
that there are differences between the claimed cap and the
Vance cap in the appearance of each of these two elements, but
contends that it would have been obvious to modify both of the
elements in view of Adkins and Owen, respectively, to arrive
at the design of the
claimed cap. Appellant argues at page 5 of the brief that
Vance is not a so-called Rosen reference, “since the Examiner
had to substitute all of the elements for Vance to make the
rejection.” Also, appellant contends that even if the smooth
band of Owen were substituted for the band of Vance (or
Adkins), the resulting cap would not have a wide band, as
claimed.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s brief and reply brief, and
in the examiner’s answer, we conclude that the claimed shower
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007