Appeal No. 99-1024
Application 29/062,504
Winston 4,966,365 Oct. 30, 1990
The appealed claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Winston.
Reference is made to the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 6)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 7) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of this invention.
In determining the patentability of a design, it is the
overall appearance, the visual effect as a whole of the
design, which must be taken into consideration. In re Rosen,
673 F.2d 388, 390, 213 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1982). Where the
inquiry is to be made under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the proper
standard is whether the design would have been obvious to a
designer of ordinary skill of the articles involved. In re
Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1216, 211 USPQ 782, 784 (CCPA
1981). As a starting point, there must be a reference, a
something in existence, the design characteristics of which
are basically the same as those of 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
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007