Appeal No. 2001-2251 Page 4
Application No. 09/345,857
of the Brief, the claims define a package and a product contained therein, and not
merely the disposition of indicia, and therefore we agree that they are in conformance
with Section 101. This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejection Under The Second Paragraph Of Section 112
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected because claim 2 “is redundant in view of the last
amendment of claim 1, which substantially incorporates the subject matter of claim 2
into claim 1 at lines 6 and 7" (Answer, page 4).
Lines 6 and 7 of claim 1 state that at least one of the first and second indicia
comprise “a latticework defined by individual cells, said individual cells having
decorative markings therein.” Claim 2 further restricts the decorative markings to being
“nonalphameric.” Since claim 1 provides no limitations regarding the form that the
decorative markings should take, it is clear to us that claim 2 is not indefinite by virtue of
being redundant, for it further limits claim 1. Therefore it does not run afoul of
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejections Under Section 103
Claims 1-18 stand rejected as being obvious in view of the combined teachings
of Schulz in view of either Hay or Walker, and Sporing in view of either Hay or Walker.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007