Ex parte ANTHONY L. SCHRANK, et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 96-3210                                                          
          Application 29/025,638                                                      

          in the final rejection (Paper No. 5, page 2), it is the                     
          examiner's position that                                                    
               [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill                  
               in the art . . . to modify the kitchen hood, 21, of                    
               Weaver et al. so as to have sides that angle inward as                 
               they go toward the front and so as to have a rounded                   
               top front edge as taught by Winton.  Said modification                 
               would meet the appearance of the claimed design.                       
          In justifying this position in the Answer the examiner has added            
          that the design shown in Weaver is "strikingly similar to the               
          claimed design" (page 3), and if any differences remain after the           
          teachings of the two references are combined, they are "seen to             
          be minor and do not render the claimed design unobvious" (page              
               The appellants argue first that Weaver does not constitute a           
          Rosen reference and, second, that even if it does, the combined             
          teachings of the two references still fail to render the claimed            
          design obvious.  The differences to which the appellants point              
          are the rounded edges and corners, and they urge that since these           
          are not shown in the references, the overall appearance of the              
          claimed design cannot be suggested thereby.                                 
               We share the appellants' belief that even assuming,                    
          arguendo, that Weaver constitutes a Rosen reference, the two                
          references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007