Appeal No. 2002-2175
Serial No. 09/060,960
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Since Connell does not disclose a package
meeting the identifying means limitations in claim 1, it is not
anticipatory with respect to the subject matter recited therein.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2 through 5, as being
anticipated by Connell.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection based on Connell
Acknowledging that Connell does not meet the golf glove
identifying means limitations in claim 1, the examiner
nonetheless concludes that
one skilled in the art, looking at the package and
label combination in the Connell device and noting the
context within which the package and label are used,
would have been motivated to use a similar package and
label embodiment to provide information to a consumer
regarding any number of packaged products [including,
presumably, a packaged golf glove] [answer, page 4].
The examiner, however, has failed to advance in this
rejection any prior art golf glove packaging evidence which
supports this conclusion.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2 through 5,
as being obvious over Connell.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007