Appeal No. 2000-0266
Application No. 08/762,973
arguments (brief, pages 12 through 14; reply brief, page 2) that
the applied references neither teach nor would have suggested the
specifically claimed fabric material, thickness and weights set
forth in these claims.
We agree with the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5) that
Vigal discloses all of the claimed subject matter set forth in
claims 1, 2 and 13 through 15 except for the printed indicia.
Appellant’s contentions to the contrary notwithstanding, we
likewise agree with the examiner (answer, page 5) that Lo teaches
“printing indicia on the sanitation guard (col. 3, lines 28-35),”
and that “it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art
to modify ‘267 with printed indicia as taught by Lo . . . .” In
response to appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 10 and 11), the
examiner correctly concluded (answer, pages 8 and 9) that:
[T]he concept here is the design or structure of the
sanitary guard, and the use of such guard with the
handset. The type of instruction printed on the guard
can be varied as long as such printing would not
interfere with the operation of the combination of the
guard and the handset. This is also stated by Lo, see
col. 3, lines 28-35 . . . .
Appellants reliance (brief, page 11) on In re Gulack,
703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) is
misplaced since a showing has not been made that the indicia is
“functionally related” to the claimed sanitary article for a
telephone handset.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007