Appeal No. 97-3411
Application No. 29/029,284
the gripping portion, a plain upper surface of even
width, and round legs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the Amerock pull by making the surface under the
gripping portion flat, the upper surface plain and of
even width as taught by the Forms + Surfaces pull as
well as rounding the legs.
This modification of the basic reference in light
of the secondary prior art is proper because the
applied references are so related that the appearance
of features shown in one would suggest the application
of those features to the other. In re Rosen, 213 USPQ
347 (CCPA 1982). . . .
Appellants note that “[b]ecause Amerock shows only one view
(which is not very clear), a sample of the product has been made
a part of the record of this application” (Brief, page 3). As a2
result of the lack of other views (e.g., a bottom view) of the
Amerock pull, appellants argue (Brief, page 5) that “[r]ejection
of a claim based on something that is not shown in a reference is
improper.” Based upon the single view of the Amerock 937-CW2
pull reference and the sample of the same, appellants conclude
(Brief, pages 4 and 5) that the gripping portion of the Amerock
pull has a substantially thick, triangular cross-section, is
wider at the ends than at the middle, and includes a short oblong
leg at each end thereof. Appellants argue (Brief, pages 4 and 5)
2A sample of the Amerock pull 937-CW2 is attached to the
Examiner Interview Summary Record (paper number 12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007