Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
a plurality of rolls of material (i.e., rolls of wrapping paper)
in the cylindrical openings of the top panel (12) in Schuster’s
wrap-around bottle carrier/container to allow the user to
retrieve the articles more easily. Like appellant, we find no
motivation, teaching or suggestion in the collective disclosures
of Schuster and Marquez which would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to perform the method as set forth in
appellant’s claims 12 through 14 and 16 on appeal and to utilize
the wrap-around bottle carrier of Schuster as a container for
holding and storing rolls of wrapping paper by inserting rolls of
wrapping paper through the openings (14, 74) in the top panel
(12) of the bottle carrier and into the container/carrier. Thus,
we are constrained to reverse the examiner's rejection of claims
12 through 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schuster in view Marquez.
In summary, the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 3
and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Teasdale
has been sustained, as has the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schuster.
In addition, the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) has been sustained, but not the rejection of
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007