Appeal No. 99-0838
Application 29/064,666
references, when such references are "so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in
one would suggest the application of those features to the other." See In re Rosen, supra; In re Glavas,
230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). If, however, the combined teachings of the
applied references suggest only components of the claimed design, but not its overall appearance, an
obviousness rejection is inappropriate. See In re Cho, 813 F.2d 378, 1 USPQ2d 1662 (Fed. Cir
1987).
In the present case, appellants have challenged the examiner's determination that the lid of
Imperial is a Rosen-type reference. In fact, it is appellants’ position that neither of the applied
references satisfy the Rosen requirement for a basic design reference. Appellants further argue that the
prior art references relied upon by the examiner do not reasonably suggest the modification of the lid of
Imperial as proposed by the examiner, and that, even if the references were combined as proposed, the
resulting cup lid would not render obvious the claimed design considered as a whole. Appellants also
point to a declaration by one of the inventors, Claus E. Sadlier, as providing evidence of commercial
success of the claimed cup lid.
After a careful review, we find that we are in agreement with the examiner's position that the
Imperial lid meets the requirements of a Rosen-type reference and constitutes a "something in existence"
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007