Appeal No. 97-2464
Application 29/038,531
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill of the designer in this particular art would not have
suggested to the designer of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the design claim before us. Accordingly, we
reverse.
The examiner has pointed out what each of the prior art
references teaches and has indicated how and why these references
would have been combined to arrive at the claimed invention. The
examiner has, therefore, at least satisfied the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Initially, we point out that in a proper rejection of a
design claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, there is the requirement that
there must be a reference (the basic design), a something in
existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the
same as the claimed design in order to support a holding of
obviousness. In other words, the basic reference design must
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007