Appeal No. 2001-0557 Page 6
Application 09/376,548
a body being movable between an open configuration and a closed configuration, and
goes on to present the window is terms of the step of
providing at least one relatively thinner portion of the body and a relatively
thicker portion of the body, the thinner portion defining a window through
which the glove can be viewed.
The appellant has not disputed the examiner’s contention that all of the subject matter
recited in this claim except for the window is disclosed by Marks. Cavan explicitly teaches
providing a window in a panel of a carton body in order to permit the contents of the carton
to be viewed from the outside (column 3, lines 14 and 15). The window disclosed by
Cavan comprises a relatively thinner portion of the body which is surrounded by a thicker
portion, and thus it meets the terms of claim 17, which does not require that the thinner and
thicker portions be integrally formed, as was the case in claim 1. It is our opinion that
Cavan would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a window having the
characteristics recited in claim 17 in one of the panels of the Marks athletic glove
container. In addition, it seems to us that one of ordinary skill in virtually any art would have
found it obvious to provide a window in a container for the self evident advantages of doing
so, of which a most profound one
clearly would be to determine what is inside without opening the container, for skill is
presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007