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
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007