Appeal No. 1999-1568 Page 3
Application No. 29/063,397
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' drawings,
specification and claim and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have determined that the
examiner's rejection of the appellants' design claim under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morris cannot be
sustained.
At the outset, we keep in mind that, in a rejection of a
design claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, there is a requirement
that there must be a single basic 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. See In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29
USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rosen, 673 F.2d
388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1982).
The examiner relies upon the appearance of the tunnel 64
of Morris as the basic design reference, i.e., as a "Rosen"
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007