Appeal No. 96-3407 Application 08/325,549 flange 52. In the assembled state, the hub 48 extends through a central aperture in the spool and is attached to the container 12 by a bolt 54 which extends entirely through aperture 26 in the rear wall 18 of the container and is fastened to the back side of the rear wall by a nut (see Fig. 2). Thus assembled, the hub serves, not only as the rotatable mounting for the spool, but also as a means to retain the spool in the container (by virtue of the retaining flange 52). If screw 54 were removed as the examiner proposes, it is readily apparent that hub 48 would no longer have the capability of performing the function of rotatably supporting the spool (inasmuch as the hub would no longer be attached to the container) and Harrill's device would no longer operate in the manner intended. Accordingly, we cannot agree that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it obvious to remove the screw 54 from Harrill's device as the examiner has proposed. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harrill in view of Chong. Considering now the rejection of claims 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 33, 34, 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being 9Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007