Appeal No. 2002-1818
Application 29/094,432
developing designs in a particular field. See In re Nalbandian,
661 F.2d 1214, 1216, 211 USPQ 782, 784-85 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, as a starting point when a § 103 rejection is based
upon a combination of references, there must be a reference, a
"something in existence," the design characteristics of which are
basically the same as the claimed design. Once a reference meets
the test of a basic design reference, ornamental features may
reasonably be interchanged with or added from those in other
pertinent references, when such references are "so 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, and 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 challenged the examiner's
determination that the expanded package seen in Zoss is a Rosen-
type reference (brief, pages 4-6 and reply brief, pages 3-4).
Appellant further argues with regard to the applied prior art
references that a designer of ordinary skill who designs cartons
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007