Appeal No. 2003-0043
Application 29/065,720
related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one
would suggest the application of those features to the other."
See In re Rosen, supra;; In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109
USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). If, however, the combined teachings of
the 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, 1663-64 (Fed. Cir 1987).
In the present case, appellant has not challenged the
examiner's determination (answer, pages 5-6) that the Gillette
package is a Rosen-type reference. Instead, appellant has urged
that even if the references were combined in the manner posited
by the examiner, the resulting container would not have the
overall distinctly different appearance of the container claimed
by appellant. More particularly, appellant has argued that the
prior art references relied upon by the examiner do not
reasonably teach or suggest a projecting portion of a rear panel
of a paperboard container that has a configuration like that
required in the claimed container design. We agree.
Even if a designer of ordinary skill who designs paperboard
containers were to provide the rear panel of the Gillette package
with angled side corner cuts similar to those seen on the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007