Appeal No. 99-1010
Application 29/062,011
In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1217, 211 USPQ 782, 785 (CCPA
1981). Furthermore, as a starting point for a § 103
rejection, there must be a reference, a “something in
existence,” the design characteristics of which are basically
the same as the claimed design:
Thus there must be a reference, a
something in existence, the design
characteristics of which are basically the
same as the claimed design in order to
support a holding of obviousness. Such a
reference is necessary whether the holding
is based on the basic reference alone or on
the basic reference in view of
modifications suggested by secondary
references.
Rosen at 673 F.2d 391, 213 USPQ 350.
We reverse the outstanding rejection of the pending
design claim on appeal because the examiner's position is
flawed in several major respects.
According to one line of reasoning, the examiner appears
to give no patentable weight to or effectively reads out of
the claimed invention the four holes around the neck portion
and the opening in the bottom of the claimed hanging flower
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007