Customs and Patent Appeals· 3/11/1982

In re Rosen

Citations

673 F.2d 388
213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 347
1982 CCPA LEXIS 174

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant’s table”
concluding that two glass coffee tables were \significantly different in concept\ because the primary reference \does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table\
rejecting the primary reference where “modifications of [it] necessary to achieve [the patented] design would destroy the fundamental characteristics” of that reference
rejecting the primary reference where \modifications of [it] necessary to achieve [the patented] design would destroy the fundamental characteristics\ of that reference
“[T]here must be a reference, a some- thing in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design in order to support a holding of obviousness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baldwin, Markey, Miller, Nies, Rich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.