Appeal No. 1999-1567
Design Application 29/035,428
The designs of other references may properly be relied
upon for the modification of this basic design when the
references are "so related that the appearance of certain
ornamental features in one would suggest the application of
those features to the other." In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447,
450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). As stated in In re Harvey,
12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993):
In ornamental design cases, a proper obviousness
rejection based on a combination of references requires
that the visual ornamental features (design
characteristics) of the claimed design appear in the
prior art in a manner which suggests such features as
used in the claimed design. If, however, the combined
teachings suggest only components of a claimed design,
but not its overall appearance, an obviousness rejection
is inappropriate. [Citations omitted.]
Analysis
Initially, we note that Kasin is not necessary to the
rejection because Bourcart expressly discloses that the
cylindrical boxes 28-31 and the vial 40 can be of transparent
material (col. 1, line 46 to col. 2, line 8) for an ornamental
appearance (see col. 2, lines 4-6: "By suitable selection of
materials, it is possible to produce a very attractive
over-all appearance . . . ."). Appellant's arguments that the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007