Appeal No. 96-3571
Application No. 29/021,754
test of a basic design reference, features may reasonably be
interchanged with or added from those in other pertinent
references. See In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574, 39 USPQ2d
1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391,
213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982).
While we agree that the Vaseline® jar design
possesses design characteristics which are basically the same
as appellant's claimed design, thus meeting the requirements
of a "Rosen" reference and that the appearance of certain
ornamental features in the Kipperman design would have
suggested the application of those features to the Vaseline®
jar design, we cannot agree with the examiner that it would
have been obvious to a designer of such jars having ordinary
skill to modify the Vaseline® jar by selecting only the
arcuate configuration shown by Kipperman for the top edge of
the front and rear of the jar base as proposed by the examiner
in the rejection of the claimed design. It is our view that
such a designer of ordinary skill would have necessarily
incorporated the oval configuration of the jar body (as
depicted in the perspective view of Figure 1 and the to and
bottom plan views of Figures 4 and 5 of Kipperman) along with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007