Appeal No. 97-0088
Application No. 29/015,807
their blade in general appearance. We agree that Hyde is a basic
design reference.
At this point, we note that once such a basic design
reference is found, other references may be used to modify it to
create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as
the claimed design. See In re Harvey, 12 F.3d at 1063, 29 USPQ2d
at 1208. These secondary references may only be used to modify
the basic design reference if they are so related to the basic
design reference that the appearance of certain ornamental
features in one would have suggested the application of those
features to the other. See In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574, 39
USPQ2d 1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1996). However, such modifications
cannot destroy fundamental characteristics of the basic design
reference. See In re Rosen, supra. Thus, the focus in a design
patent obviousness inquiry should be on visual appearances rather
than design concepts. See In re Harvey, 12 F.3d at 1064, 29
USPQ2d at 1208.
The difficulty we have with the examiner's rejection is that
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the wall scraper of Hyde to accommodate a central square
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007