Appeal No. 2002-0070
Application No. 09/537,949
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing rejection of claim 20, or claims
22, 24 and 25 that depend either directly or indirectly therefrom, as being unpatentable over
Matthews and Blais.
Turning to the rejection of claims 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 39 and 40 as being unpatentable over
Matthews in view of Blais and Fraser, and the rejection of claim 28 as being unpatentable over
Matthews in view of Blais, Fraser and Redewill, we note that the examiner has employed Blais in
the same capacity as used in the rejection of claims 20, 22, 24 and 25, namely, as a basis for
concluding that it would have been obvious to provide the pillow of Matthews with a central holder
removably secured to the medial region of the pillow. This line of reasoning is no more persuasive
here then it was with respect to the rejection of claims 20, 22, 24 and 25. As to the addition of
Fraser and/or Redewill to the basic reference combination, Fraser’s teaching of a labeling tag for
suspending gloves or similar articles from a hanger rod, and Redewill’s teaching of providing an
additional protective cover (e.g., tote bag 110) for a pillow, do not overcome the basic deficiencies
of Matthews and Blais discussed above. Accordingly, we also shall not sustain the standing
rejections of 23, 26-30, 39 and 40.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007