Appeal No. 2001-2251 Page 2
Application No. 09/345,857
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a package in combination with a disposable
consumer product. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which reads as follows:1
1. A package in combination with a disposable consumer product
contained therein, said package having at least one external face with a
first indicia disposed thereon, said disposable consumer product being
contained within said package and dispensable therefrom, said
disposable consumer product having second indicia non-identically
matching said first indicia and disposed directly on said consumer
product, at least one of said first and second indicia comprising a
latticework defined by individual cells, said individual cells having
decorative markings therein.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Walker 2,082,671 Jun. 1, 1937
Hay Des. 149,874 Jun. 8, 1948
Schulz Des. 354,856 Jan. 31, 1995
Sporing et al. (Sporing) Des. 400,716 Nov. 10, 1998
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the applicant regards as the invention.
1The remaining claims have been reproduced in an appendix to the Brief. It should be noted,
however, that claim 4 as set forth therein is incorrect; in all occurrences “tissue” should read –tissues– and
“lattice” should read –latticework–.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007