Appeal No. 1999-1013
Application No. 29/014,141
1956). However, if the combined teachings of the applied
references would have suggested only components of the claimed
design, but not its overall appearance, a conclusion of
obviousness under Section 103 is inappropriate. In re Cho, 813
F.2d 378, 382, 1 USPQ2d 1662, 1663-64 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Our application of these legal principles to the factual
circumstances before us on this appeal lead to the clear
determination that each of the examiner’s Section 103 rejections
is improper.
Concerning the Section 103 rejection based on the Southco
reference alone, the examiner fully appreciates the difference in
knurling between the here claimed and prior art designs but
dismisses this difference as “a minor detail which does not
patentably distinguish the article’s overall appearance.”
Answer, page 3. The examiner has proffered utterly no rationale
or evidence in support of this position.1 From our perspective,
the knurling on the lower end of the appellant’s claimed captive
screw design quite plainly impacts the overall appearance and
1Indeed, whatever support might exist for the examiner’s
position is undermined by his earlier espoused position regarding
a now-dropped Section 112 rejection which was based on the
presence versus absence of ribs or knurling in certain figures of
the originally filed drawing (see page 3 of paper no. 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007