Appeal No. 2000-2150
Application 29/083,483
applied references suggest only components of the claimed design,
but not its overall appearance, an obviousness rejection is
inappropriate. See In re Cho, 813 F.2d 378, 382, 1 USPQ2d 1662,
1663 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
As to the rejection of the design claim on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103, we also reverse this rejection. The earlier
noted first Office action took the position that with the
exception of the grooves of the interior jaw, Huebschen shows all
basic aspects of the claimed design. Since Vallone disclosed a
planar interior jaw, the examiner considered it obvious to the
ordinary designer to have modified the entire jaw of Huebschen
(Figure 12) by making the grooved surface planar as shown by
Vallone because the applied references were so related that the
appearance of features shown in one would have suggested the
application of them to the other. Implicitly, the examiner has
asserted that Huebschen is a Rosen-type reference. In response
to appellants' amendment to this first Office action the examiner
maintained the position that the design claim on appeal was
obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner characterized the
line of demarcation in Huebschen as a "shallow curved line" in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007