Appeal No. 1998-3425
Application 08/502,977
single polyethylene bags from a roll of polyethylene bags,”
while the last clause of the claim positively sets forth that
the dispenser contains a roll of polyethylene bags of a
specific construction, and that said specific bag construction
cooperates with the plurality of
truncated teeth of the dispensing slot of the dispenser in a
particular manner to enable only one bag at a time to be
dispensed from the roll of bags. Thus, it is clear to us that
appellant is claiming a combination in the claims before us on
appeal, wherein a specific form of dispenser and a specific
form of polyethylene bags on a roll are set forth together as
defining the subject matter appellant regards as his
invention. Since we find no “double inclusion” problem in
appellant’s independent claim 8, it follows that the
examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and of claims 4 through 7 and 9 which depend
therefrom, will not be sustained.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall and
Wilfong, we note, with respect to independent claim 8, that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007