Appeal No. 97-1566
Application 29/033,924
every prior art bowl or vase shape ever publicly disclosed would
render obvious any generally similar vase shape. Clearly, this
cannot be the case.”).
Further, and perhaps more importantly, even if we were to
accept that it would have been obvious as a general principle to
modify the outer shape of Spiegel by making it shield shaped in
view of Hornung’s teaching that such shapes are known, we do not
agree with the examiner’s implied position that the claimed
ornamental design would necessarily ensue. In this regard, the
examiner appears to be of the view that the designer of ordinary
skill who designs articles of the type involved here would have
found it obvious to select a particular portion of a particular
one of Hornung’s shield variants (namely, one of the light
portions of the 1711 shield variant) and apply it to Spiegel in a
particular manner (i.e., such that the rounded portion of
Spiegel’s cavity is located in the pointed lower end of the
shield with the periphery of the rounded portion closely
“mimicking” the outer periphery of the shield’s pointed lower
end). However, it is not apparent to us why an ordinarily
skilled designer would be so inclined based on the teachings of
the references themselves. Where prior art references require a
selective combination to render obvious a claimed invention,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007