Appeal No. 2001-2537 Page 6
Application No. 08/802,472
remaining claims, namely claims 17 to 23 and 27-30, these claims
all depend either directly or indirectly from claim 5.1 In that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness of base claim 5, the § 103 of these
claims also cannot be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Remand to the examiner
In addition to the foregoing, we find it necessary to remand
this case to the examiner to consider whether any of claims 5, 8
to 15 and 17 to 31 would have been obvious in view of the
following patents: Des 388,606; Des 392,096; Des 394,156;
Des 373,245; US D449,711 S; Des 431,879; Des 424,295;
Des 217,412; Des 194,287; US D449,777 S; Des. 346,185;
Des. 57,436; Des 262,189; Des. 390,103 (copies attached).
For example, Des. 394,156 discloses a tire shaped emergency
road kit. The shape of the package is a replica of a tire and
the tire shape may be considered to visually convey information
about an “associated” activity, such as changing a tire. The
examiner should consider whether Des. 384,156 would have
1Claims 27-30 are multiple dependent claims that depend from
any one of claims 5 and 8 to 23.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007