Appeal No. 2003-1862
Application No. 29/153,657
must be a reference, a Asomething 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 Aso related that the
appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of
those features to the other.@ See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 at 391, 213 USPQ 347 at
350 (CCPA 1982); In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956); In
re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 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 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
The examiner=s reasoning of combinability at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer
concludes that it would have been obvious for the ordinary designer to have modified
Herzog=s element 36 or the Valu Guide rod cross block in Bulletin No. 153 by the
addition of raised bosses around the circular openings as taught by the Valu Guide
transition cap assembly on page 30.2A. Following the above noted case law, the
examiner reaches this conclusion because of the view that the applied references are
so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the
application of those features
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007