Appeal No. 96-3210
Application 29/025,638
The ornamental design for a KITCHEN RANGE HOOD as shown
and described.
The invention is depicted in the drawings in nine views.
As evidence of the obviousness of the appellants' design the
examiner has cited the following references:
Weaver et al. (Weaver) 2,836,114 May 27, 1958
Winton 3,125,869 Mar. 24, 1964
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Weaver in view of Winton.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are expressed in
the Brief on Appeal.
OPINION
Our reviewing court has provided the following guidance for
deciding the issue of the obviousness of a design claim in view
of prior art references:
In rejections of design claims predicated upon 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the proper standard is whether a design would have been
obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the articles involved.
See In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1216, 211 USPQ 782, 784
(CCPA 1981). To support a holding of obviousness there must be a
reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007