Appeal No. 2001-0557 Page 8
Application 09/376,548
its teaching of providing finger holds projecting outwardly from body elements to facilitate
moving the elements between open and closed configurations. Be that as it may,
Schlaupitz does not overcome the shortcoming discussed above with regard to the three
references applied against claim 1, and therefore we also will not sustain the rejection of
claims 3 and 4.
(3)
Marks and Schlaupitz have been applied against independent claim 11, which is
directed to the combination of an athletic glove and a package for the glove. The package
is recited as defining an interior holding the glove, the package being formed with plural
holes for ventilating the glove and including a plastic body having a first body element
joined to a second body element. The claim further sets out “a first finger hold made
integrally with the first body element and a second finger hold made integrally with the
second body element.” Marks discloses a package for an athletic glove which comprises
a body having joined first and second elements in which there are holes for ventilation. The
package is closed by “[a]ppropriate closure means . . . such as Velcro strips coacting with
one another, a zipper, or snaps” (column 2, lines 5 and 6). We agree with the examiner
that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to equip each of the body elements of
Marks with a finger hold made integrally therewith, in view of the explicit teaching of
Schlaupitz that such will provide assistance in the opening and closing of the body
elements (column 5, line 10 et seq.). In response to the appellant’s argument that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007