Ex parte MEYER - Page 5

          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.                       

               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,              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007