Appeal No. 98-1252 Page 4
Application No. 08/642,184
we will sustain Rejections (2), (3) and (5) and reverse
Rejections (1) and (4). Our reasons for these determinations
follow.
Rejection (1)
According to the examiner it would have been obvious to
provide the cap of the toothpaste container of Miles with a
dental floss dispenser in view of the teachings of Grussmark.
The examiner is further of the opinion that it would have been
obvious to form the vertically-inclined side walls of the
housing of the dental floss dispenser of the toothpaste
container of Miles, as modified by Grussmark, as a cylinder
(thus resulting in the footprints of the housing's top and
bottom walls being equal) in view of the teachings of Paulson.
We will not support the examiner's position. While we
agree with the examiner that, as a broad proposition, it would
have been obvious to provide the cap of the toothpaste
container of Miles with a dental floss dispenser in view of the
teachings of Grussmark, we cannot agree that it would have
further been obvious to form the housing of the dispenser of
the modified toothpaste container in such a manner that the
footprints of the housing's top and bottom walls were equal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007