Appeal No. 98-2105
Application 29/052,205
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness in support of his rejection under
§ 103:
Hyde 3,066,936 Dec. 4, 1962
Lombardo 5,409,220 Apr. 25, 1995
The appealed claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hyde in view of Lombardo. The examiner
considers Hyde to be a Rosen reference and takes the following 2
position:
It would have been obvious to a designer
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified the basic
shaft of Hyde by having a more acute angled
shaft as disclosed by Lombardo; to do so
would have resulted in an article
substantially similar in overall appearance
as appellant’s claimed design. [Answer, page
3].
In support of patentability, appellant argues that Hyde is
not a Rosen reference because it does not create the same basic
visual impression as appellant’s design. In addition, appellant
2 See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007