Appeal No. 2000-0553
Application No. 29/079,653
(Answer, pages 3 and 4), and that “the applied references are
so related that the appearance of features shown in one would
suggest the application of those features to the other”
(Answer, page 4).
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for further
detailed positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, we
agree with the examiner that Haugland is a proper Rosen
reference, and that the cake cutter of Haugland and the knife
of Harvey are “so related that the appearance of certain
ornamental features in one . . . would have suggested
application of those features to another.” In re Cho, 813
F.2d 378, 382, 1 USPQ2d 1662, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 1987). For
example, Harvey would have suggested a blade straight off the
handle and a non-serrated blade to Haugland.
With respect to the other differences between the
modified Haugland design and the disclosed and claimed design,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007