Appeal No. 96-3622
Application 29/019,382
“In determining the patentability of a design, it is the
overall appearance, the visual effect as a whole of the design,
which must be taken into consideration.” See In re Rosen, 673
F.2d 388, 390, 213 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1982). Where the inquiry
is to be made under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the proper standard is
whether the design would have been obvious to a designer of
ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved. See
In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1217, 211 USPQ 782, 785 (CCPA
1981). Furthermore, as a starting point when a § 103 rejection
is based upon a combination of references, there must be a
reference, a “something in existence,” the design characteristics
of which are basically the same as the claimed design. Once a
reference meets the test of a basic design reference, ornamental
features may reasonably be interchanged with or added from those
in other pertinent references, when such references are “so
related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one
would suggest the application of those features to the other.”
See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA
1982); In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA
1956); In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29 USPQ2d 1206, 1208
(Fed. Cir. 1993). If, however, the combined teachings of the
applied references suggest only components of the claimed design,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007