Ex parte FIGUEROA - Page 5

          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                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007