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
4).
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007