Appeal No. 1998-2418
Application No. 08/686,883
an open end at the enlarged portion, a peelable cover closing
off the open end . . . ." Although Jones discusses frictional
engagement with respect to the disadvantageous prior art
packages, the article containing package 10 of Jones'
preferred embodiment is not disclosed as being in frictional
engagement with the central opening, rather "the article
containing chamber 20 has a maximum transverse dimension which
is slightly less than the transverse dimension of the opening
14" (col.3, lines 38-41), i.e. it is not in frictional
engagement. Lane and Burtis are applied by the examiner for
an enlarged container portion and an enlargement on the
container for frictional engagement, respectively, the
suggestion being that such modification is obvious as stated
in the answer at page 8. However, no acceptable reasoning for
combining this feature with appellant's disclosed prior art is
given by the examiner. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 35 on this ground.
Appellant's arguments with regard to claim 36 assert "the
ink roller contacts the closed end and the other end of the
ink roller contacts the cover. This results in the ink roller
being held captive in the ink roller container . . . {n]one of
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007