Appeal No. 2006-1451
Application No. 08/802,472
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments as to claims 51, 53, 55 and 57, to
be unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 51, 53, 55
and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gossard.
To summarize the above conclusions, we sustain the rejections of claims 8, 12,
18, 29, 51, 53, 55 and 57, and we do not sustain the rejections of claims 10, 14 and 15,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gossard.
Claims 17 and 49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as
obvious over Gossard in view of Francis.
Claims 17 and 49 depend from claim 5 and include the limitation that it have a
logo and a message suggestive of use on the package respectively. We note that
Francis shows text and graphic symbols that may reasonably be characterized as a
logo and as a message suggestive of use on the package in the form of the words
“CARD FOOTBAL” and a symbol representing the lacing on a football in its Fig. 1. The
appellant argues that this is not a logo and is not a message suggestive of use. We
note that the specification does not contain a definition of logo, and therefore we may
consult a dictionary as extrinsic evidence of the meaning of the term. The American
Heritage Dictionary defines a logo as a name, symbol, or trademark designed for easy
and definite recognition, especially one borne on a single printing plate or piece of type.
We note that the text in Francis’ Fig. 1 satisfies this definition by being a name. The
appellant then cites In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969)4, to support
the argument that printed matter must be considered if it is functionally related to other
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007