Appeal No. 1999-2020
Application D-29/058,031
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 who designs articles of the type
involved. See
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.
Appellants' summary of the invention at pages 2 through 4
of the brief discusses and depicts in part the nature of the
prior art, conventional pre-recorded optical disks such as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007