Appeal No. 2002-0070
Application No. 09/537,949
wrappings for cordsets usually included printed information concerning such matters as price,
electric power carrying capacity, and cord length.
In proposing to combine Matthews and Blais to reject claim 20, the examiner submits that
“it would have been obvious in view of Blais to surround a mid portion of the pillow of Matthews
for providing advertising and information thereon relating to the pillow” (answer, page 3). In a
similar vein, the examiner also contends that “it is conventional to package an article in a simple
holder such as taught by Blais . . . to display print information concerning the article. The
motivation to combine the references together is to provide an economical package yet allowing a
user to inspect the pillow without interfering with the holder” (answer, page 5).
Appellant argues, first, that Blais constitutes nonanalogous art. However, in the view we
take in this case, even if we assume that Blais is analogous art, the obviousness rejections of the
appealed claims is not well founded.
Appellant also argues (brief, page 5) that Blais teaches a specific collar for maintaining the
integrity of a hanked electric cording during storage and display, and that there is nothing in the fair
teachings of Blais and Matthews that would have suggested or motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art to combine their teachings in a manner that would have resulted in the claimed subject matter.
We agree.
Like appellant, we find no basis in the combined teachings of Matthews and Blais for
employing the cordset wrap of Blais for packaging the pillow of Matthews. In this instance,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007