context: Second, to be considered an alternative, the alternative design must simply provide "the same or similar functional capabilities."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 190 F.3d 1360, 1368
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that to be patentable, there cannot only be one "possible [ornamental] form of the article that could perform its function"
citation_a.sentence: Rosco, 304 F.3d at 1378 (reversing functionality finding because alternative mirror designs could still provide a similar level of performance); see also Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote Intern., Inc., 190 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed.Cir.1999) (explaining that to be patentable, there cannot only be one “possible [ornamental] form of the article that could perform its function”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 304 F.3d 1378, 1378
citation_b.parenthetical: reversing functionality finding because alternative mirror designs could still provide a similar level of performance
citation_b.sentence: Rosco, 304 F.3d at 1378 (reversing functionality finding because alternative mirror designs could still provide a similar level of performance); see also Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote Intern., Inc., 190 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed.Cir.1999) (explaining that to be patentable, there cannot only be one “possible [ornamental] form of the article that could perform its function”).