Appeal No. 2002-2175
Serial No. 09/060,960
As for the teachings of the applied prior art, Connell’s
disclosure of a label designed to quickly and accurately convey
the identity and characteristics of articles packaged in a box or
carton would have furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or
motivation to apply such a label to a conventional golf glove
package for the same reasons, thereby arriving at the particular
package set forth in claim 1. The appellants’ arguments to the
contrary are not persuasive.
More particularly, the disclosed presence on Connell’s label
of text and graphics indicative of the style, physical
characteristics, price and manufacturer of the articles within
the box or carton belies the appellants’ contention (see, for
example, pages 4 through 7 in the main brief) that Connell
teaches a universal label which does not provide information
about the characteristics of the pipes in the package. Although
Connell’s label has a universal aspect in that it displays
pictorial representations of other articles made by the
manufacturer, such additional information is not excluded by, or
otherwise inconsistent with, the limitations in claim 1. This
disclosure by Connell also refutes the appellants’ argument (see,
for example, pages 6 and 8 in the main brief) that Connell’s
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007