Appeal No. 2001-0557 Page 4
Application 09/376,548
USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). Insofar as the references themselves are concerned, we
are bound to consider the disclosure of each for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill
in the art, including not only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom (see In re
Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
(1)
Independent claim 1 stands rejected as being unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Marks, Haarlander and Cavan. As manifested in claim 1, the appellant’s
inventive package for an athletic glove comprises, inter alia, a non-flaccid plastic body
including a first body element joined to a second body element along a living hinge, with
the second body element “being integrally formed with a relatively thinner window area
bounded by a relatively thicker body area.” It is the examiner’s position that all of the
subject matter recited in this claim is disclosed by Marks, except for the window, but the
examiner is of the opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide a window in the second body element in view of the teachings of Haarlander
and Cavan. In this regard, the examiner opines that Haarlander’s window is “on a
container portion 22 which has a thinner area than the body area 44, 47,” and Cavan
suggests providing transparent windows that are flush with the exterior portion of the
container, which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Marks
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007