Appeal No. 1999-1013
Application No. 29/014,141
visual effect as a whole of the design and therefore must be
taken into consideration. Rosen, 673 F.2d at 390, 213 USPQ at
349.
As for the Section 103 rejection based on the Southco
reference in view of Molina, we share the appellant’s view that
the knurling feature in Molina would not have suggested
application of that feature to the Southco design. Id., 673 F.2d
at 391, 213 USPQ at 350. This is because, as correctly argued by
the appellant, the Molina design does not relate to a captive
screw of the type displayed in the Southco reference (or of the
type here claimed). In fact, the examiner is clearly erroneous
in identifying element 35 of Molina as “vertical knurled ribs on
the shank portion of a captive screw.” Answer, page 4. While
element 35 relates to a knurl feature, it is disposed on a plug
33 rather than the shank of screw 10 (e.g., see lines 18-45 in
column 3). Thus, the examiner’s obviousness conclusion is
inappropriate because the combined teachings of the applied
references, at best, would have suggested only components of the
here claimed design but not its overall appearance. Cho, 813
F.2d at 382, 1 USPQ2d at 1663-64.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007