Appeal No. 2006-1451
Application No. 08/802,472
The appellant further 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 claim 29 to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable as obvious over Gossard.
As to claims 51, 53, 55 and 57, these claims are similar to claims 5 and 13 with
the difference being multiple combinations and multiple articles within a container. The
appellant argues that Gossard does not teach or suggest these combinations. [See
Brief at p. 57-61] We note that Gossard describes several sports balls explicitly as
potential embodiments, and that simply marketing more than one of Gossard’s
embodiments would meet claims 51 and 57. Further, we note that using a box to
contain the items being marketed is conventional in the sale of novelty items, which
meets claim 53. Further, we note that different photographs of players on different
types of sports teams as suggested by Gossard for each of its packaging embodiments
would meet claim 55. We further note that packaging multiple variations of members of
a set of similar items in variety pack formats, for example, different cereals in variety
packs, was notoriously well known at the time of the invention.
The appellant further 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.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007