Appeal No. 97-2464
Application 29/038,531
look something like the claimed design. See In re Harvey, 12
F.3d 1061, 1063, 29 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re
Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982). Once
such a basic design reference has been established, features
thereof might reasonably be interchanged with or added from those
in other pertinent references to achieve the claimed design.
Such modifications, however, cannot destroy fundamental
characteristics of the basic design reference. The long standing
test for the proper combination of references has been whether
they are so related that the appearance of certain ornamental
features in one would suggest the application of those features
in the other. In re Rosen, supra.
We also keep the following principles clearly in mind
when evaluating the obviousness of a claimed design. The proper
standard under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether the design would have
been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill of the articles
involved. Note In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1216, 211 USPQ
782, 784 (CCPA 1981). Further it is the overall appearance of a
design, that is the visual effect as a whole of the design, which
must be taken into consideration. In re Rosen, supra. However,
while the obviousness of a design must be evaluated as a whole,
the evaluation of the whole necessarily involves consideration of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007