Appeal No. 97-2464
Application 29/038,531
of the Coupon as a basic reference, and we will treat this
particular issue as not contested.
The examiner cites the Coupon as disclosing a bottle
“that is the same as the claimed design except that it lacks the
horizontal ribs on the sides” [answer, page 3]. Desgrippes was
cited to show a bottle having raised horizontal ribs on the sides
that are similar to the ones used by appellants. Finally, the
examiner cites Brenner to show horizontal ribs on a bottle
confined to the midsection of the sidewalls. With these three
references available, the examiner stated the rejection as
follows:
It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify the
“Vaseline” lotion bottle by providing
raised horizontal ribs like the ones
shown by Desgrippes on the midsection of
the sidewall as suggested by Brenner.
Moreover, to do so would result in a
bottle that is strikingly similar to the
claimed design and no patentable
ornamental advance is seen thereover.
[answer, page 4]
Appellants basically argue that each of the cited
references is substantially different from the claimed design,
the examiner’s rejection represents a hindsight reconstruction of
the claimed design, and a combination of the cited art would not
result in the present invention [brief, pages 4-7]. We agree at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007