Appeal No. 96-2657
Application 08/212,379
23-27 and lines 49-58, discloses "constraining a compressed
roll of paper to define a shape having a major and minor axis
with elasticity of the core allowing inherent reopening of the
core." On pages 6 and 7 of the answer, the Examiner makes a
similar rejection stating that Mathieson in Figure 5
"discloses constraining a compressed roll of paper to define a
shape having a major and minor axis (elliptical)."
However, the Examiner has failed to show that the prior
art teaches or suggests the method steps recited in
Appellants’ claim that we have emphasized above. We agree
that the prior art teaches a paper wound core product that is
shaped into an elliptical shape, but we fail to find that the
prior art method teaches or suggests the method steps as
recited in Appellants’ claims to arrive at a core with a
dimension of said minor axis of about 0.16 centimeters to
about 1.27 centimeters. Both Watanabe 388 and Mathieson are
silent as to the method steps that are required to arrive at
the elliptical shape.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence
when the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching
in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007