Appeal No. 2006-1451
Application No. 08/802,472
elements. We note that the examiner has considered this in the examiner answer p. 8
indicating that the logo is suggestive of activities using the cards that would be
contained in the container shown in Francis Fig. 1. Such activities would be similar to
those the cards in Gossard would be used with as discussed above. For the same
reason, this text likewise satisfies the element of being a message suggestive of use.
The appellant also 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 17 and 49, to be
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 49 as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gossard in view
of Francis.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as obvious
over Gossard in view of Schaffer.
Claim 23 depends from claim 5 and includes the limitation that it have a means
for attaching the package to another article secured to an exterior of the package. We
note that Schaffer shows a carrying chain secured to an exterior of the baseball shaped
package and that articles could be secured to the carrying chain. The appellant argues
that Schaffer is not analogous art and therefore there would have been no motivation to
combine Schaffer’s carrying chain with Gossard’s package. As the appellant points out,
4 The appellant’s citation for this case is incorrectly given as 64 USPQ 46 on p. 3 of the appeal brief.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007