Appeal No. 96-3210
Application 29/025,638
of which are basically the same as the claimed design. Once a
reference meets the test of a basic design, reference features
may reasonably be interchanged with or added from those in other
pertinent references. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213
USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982). A proper obviousness rejection based
upon a combination of references requires that the visual
ornamental design features of the claimed design appear in the
prior art in a manner which suggests the application of them as
used in the claimed design. See In re Cho, 813 F.2d 378, 382, 1
USPQ2d 1662, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447,
450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). It is distinctiveness in
overall appearance of an object when compared with the prior art,
rather than minute details or small variations in configuration,
that constitutes the test of design patentability. See In re
Lapworth, 451 F.2d 1094, 1096, 172 USPQ 129, 131 (CCPA 1971).
The claimed design has inwardly tapered side panels which
meet the downwardly tapered top panel and front panel at rounded
edges and corners. In the Weaver design, the side panels do not
taper inwardly, and all of the joints are sharp edges. Winston
discloses inwardly tapered curved side panels 38, which mate at a
sharp edge 47 with a downwardly curved top panel 29. As stated
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007