Appeal No. 97-3411
Application No. 29/029,284
that the claimed pull design shows a gripping portion of uniform
width with a nearly flat top, and a rounded bottom, that includes
a tall circular leg at each end thereof.
Appellants have not challenged the examiner’s conclusion
that the Amerock 937-CW2 pull is a Rosen reference (i.e., “a 3
something in existence, the design characteristics of which are
basically the same as the claimed design”), but they have
questioned the propriety of modifying the Amerock pull design
with the Forms + Surfaces HD9852 pull design. Appellants argue
(Brief, pages 6 and 7) that:
F+S is cited for showing a plain upper surface and legs
that meet the bottom surface of the gripping portion at
right angles. There is no suggestion to modify Amerock
to include these features of F+S. Amerock is a
traditional design, as evidenced by the flower print,
soft curves, and porcelain finish. F+S is modern
design, as evidenced by the plain surfaces, sharp
corners, and stainless finish. Thus, there is no
suggestion to combine such different styles of handles
conveying different impressions. Moreover, the
triangular cross-section of the Amerock gripping
portion does not suggest using the same right angle
intersection as shown in F+S. As discussed above, even
when the modifications stated by the examiner are made,
they do not result in the present invention. The
examiner has not identified how the references suggest
combination to result in the present invention. Thus,
the examiner has not made a prima facie case of
obviousness.
3 In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA
1982).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007