Appeal No. 99-1018
Application No. 29/054,175
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art” to have modified 3
the Minitalus design by using a flat face having three beveled
edges “as shown and suggested by Blomquist.” See Paper No.
10, page 2.
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellants, we have
concluded that the rejection cannot be sustained. Our reason
for arriving at this conclusion is as follows.
Even conceding, arguendo, Minitalus to be a Rosen
reference, it is our view that combining the references would
not result in the claimed design. Minitalus has a bevel only
on the top edge of the front face. Blomquist has bevels on
both side edges and on the top edge of the front face. Thus,
there is no showing in either of the references of the
appearance of a bevel on the bottom edge of the front face, as
is required in the appellants’ claimed design. This being the
case, from our perspective the references clearly would not
3Of course, the standard is not that which is stated by
the examiner, but whether it would have been obvious to a
designer of ordinary skill in the articles involved (In re
Nalbandian, supra), which we shall assume is what the examiner
actually applied.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007