Appeal No. 96-3643 Application No. 29/008,022 design. Such a reference is necessary whether the holding is based on the basic reference alone or on the basic reference in view of modifications suggested by secondary references. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982). Here, we believe the examiner's selection of the Bell Catalog to be the basic reference was appropriate inasmuch as tennis racquet “C” depicted therein bears such a close over-all similarity in appearance to the appellants’ design as to satisfy the Rosen requirement of an ornamental design which is "basically the same as" the claimed design. We do not, however, believe that it would have been obvious from a design or appearance standpoint to make the necessary modifications to arrive at the appellant's design. See In re Cho, 813 F.2d 378, 382, 1 USPQ2d 1662, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The main thrust of the examiner’s position is that: The present claimed design is a racket of the old monoshaft style with a larger head and slimmer throat area. Appellant states that since the 1970's rackets were introduced with a propor- tionally longer and wider head. In fact Appellant claims three embodiments in his application the difference being the size of the head. This in itself shows that to modify the size of the head is a well known 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007