Appeal No. 2006-1451
Application No. 08/802,472
provided. However, the limitation of “visually suggested” is far broader than that, and is
only limited by the memory and imagination of whoever views the package. We note
that the preferred embodiment taught in the specification is raingear within a golf iconic
package. [see Specification at p. 4] We further note that the activity of referring to, or
even trading, Gossard’s photographs is at least as visually suggested by Gossard’s
iconic representations, as the activity of putting on a raincoat during the play of a game
is by the appellant’s iconic representation.
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments as to claim 5 to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatentable as anticipated by Gossard.
As to claims 9, 11 and 13, these claims are dependent from claim 5 and specify
that the icon is a baseball, football and a ball respectively. We note that Gossard
describes each of these explicitly as potential embodiments. The appellant argues
essentially the same as in claim 5, particularly the lack of a specific description that the
photographs are used during the respective activity, and our discussion with respect to
claim 5 applies here as well.
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments as to claims 9, 11 and 13 to be
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable as anticipated by Gossard.
As to claims 20 and 22, these claim are dependent from claim 5 and specify that
the package have an independent utility and that it be capable of receiving subsequent
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007