Appeal No. 97-3411
Application No. 29/029,284
disagree. The only thing the two reference designs have in
common is their end use. Any modification of the Amerock pull
design with the features of the Forms + Surfaces pull design to
arrive at the claimed design would only occur after observing the
overall design features of the claimed design. It is classic
hindsight to pick and choose only those features from the two
disparate designs that are needed to arrive at the claimed
design. Even if the Amerock pull is modified as directed by the
examiner (Answer, page 4), the final Amerock design would have a
flat upper surface, as opposed to an angled upper surface. The
formerly oblong legs of Amerock’s pull would have rounded outer
edges, but the inner edges of the legs would have an unknown
shape because the views of the Forms + Surfaces pull design do
not show enough views to determine the complete shape of the
legs.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with appellants that the
obviousness rejection is improper because the combined designs
would have suggested only components of the claimed design, and
not its overall appearance (Brief, page 6 and Reply Brief, page
3). The obviousness rejection is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007