Appeal No. 96-3571
Application No. 29/021,754
the arcuate configuration of the top edge of the front and
rear of the base in modifying the design features of the
Vaseline® jar.
Clearly, the jar design resulting from such
modification would not include the features of appellant's
claimed design including side portions having the "'squared-
off' segment" as argued by appellant on pages 5 and 6 of the
brief and as depicted in Figures 1 and 3 of appellant's
drawings. Thus, even though we agree that it would have been
obvious to the designer of ordinary skill to incorporate
features of Kipperman into the Vaseline® jar design, the jar
resulting from such modification would not have the overall
appearance of appellant's claimed design. Consequently, it is
our opinion that a designer of jars having ordinary skill
would not have found the overall appearance of appellant's
claimed jar design to have been obvious from a consideration
of the design characteristics of the Vaseline® jar design and
the Kipperman design.
Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of the design
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007