Appeal No. 2002-0070
Application No. 09/537,949
Discussion
Looking first at the rejection of claims 20, 22, 24 and 25 as being unpatentable over
Matthews in view of Blais, Matthews, the examiner’s primary reference in each of the rejections, is
appellant’s own patent and is directed to a support pillow 10 comprising a curved pillow body
having a medial region 15 and a pair of opposing arms 18, 20 that extend from a medial region to
define a generally open well 16. The examiner concedes (answer, page 3) that Matthews does not
disclose a support pillow that includes “a central holder removably secured to the medial region of
the pillow body, with the central holder comprising a piece of material surrounding and substantially
covering the medial region, wherein the material tapers in a direction toward the open well,” as
called for in claim 20. The examiner turns to Blais to overcome this deficiency.
Blais pertains to packaging for cordsets (i.e., electrical extension cords). Blais provides a
collar 48 secured about the mid-section of the cordset. The collar holds the strands of cord at the
mid-section so that the cord is more closely packed at the mid-section than at the looped ends of the
cordset. As shown in Figures 1-4 and as described at col. 4, lines 30-37, a conventional fastener
such as a wire staple 50 may be used to fastened the ends of the collar together. The packaged
cordset resists unraveling in storage and display yet can be readily unpackaged and extended prior to
use, is adapted for hanging display without unraveling, and is adapted for nesting in a bin display
without appreciable entanglement with other cordsets in the bin (col. 1, line 62, through col. 2, line
3). In the “Background” section of the specification, Blais states (col. 1, lines 26-29) that prior art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007