Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
portion of an elongated member from a container having a cap and a body
through an aperture in one of the cap and the body (App. Br. 18). This
argument has no merit whatsoever. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 7-
8 and 18), Joseph expressly discloses the step of pulling the tape 12 out to
the desired length (Joseph 3:7-8). The tape 12 extends through an opening
13 in wall 5, which together with bottom 3 forms a container, and is thus
pulled therethrough. Top 2 responds fully to the cap recited in claim 25.
Appellant has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 25-28. The rejection is thus sustained as to
these claims.
Claim 33:
Appellant repeats the argument discussed above with respect to claims
25-28 (App. Br. 26). It is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Appellant further argues, with respect to claim 33, that Joseph fails to teach
both a cap and a container, only one of which houses an elongated member
and defines an aperture through which it may be pulled. Id. This argument
is not well founded. First, it is not commensurate with the scope of claim
33, which does not exclude the possibility that the cap and container together
house the elongated member and that the elongated member is pulled
through an aperture in each of the cap and the container. Moreover, in any
event, as discussed above, Joseph's tape measure comprises a container
made up of wall 5 and bottom 3 and a cap in the form of top 2. The opening
13 through which tape 12 is pulled is formed in wall 5 only and thus is only
in the container made up of wall 5 and bottom 3; it is not also in top 2.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013