Appeal No. 1999-2009 Page 5
Application No. 29/052,870
ornamental features in one would have suggested the
application of those features to the other. See In re Borden,
90 F.3d 1570, 1574, 39 USPQ2d 1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
However, such modifications cannot destroy fundamental
characteristics of the basic design reference. See In re
Rosen, supra. Thus, the focus in a design patent obviousness
inquiry should be on visual appearances rather than design
concepts. See In re Harvey, 12 F.3d at 1064, 29 USPQ2d at
1208.
The difficulty we have with the examiner's rejection is
that the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify Figure 61 of Burr to include a raised bevel top surface
(answer, p. 4) as taught by Dean. We do not agree. We see no
suggestion of why a designer of ordinary skill would have
modified the building plate depicted in Figure 61 of Burr to
have included a raised bevel top surface for the reasons set
forth by the appellant (brief, pp. 5-6; reply brief, pp. 5 and
7-8). In our view, the examiner's proposed modification of
Figure 61 of Burr to include a raised bevel top surface as
taught by Dean destroys a fundamental characteristic of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007