Appeal No. 1998-2418
Application No. 08/686,883
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 31 through 36 as
being unpatentable over appellant's disclosed prior art in
view of Jones and further in view of Lane and Burtis.
Directing our attention to claims 31, 32 and 34, we note
the examiner's rejection relies on appellant's disclosed prior
art in view of Jones, Lane and Burtis. Appellant's disclosed
prior art and Jones are applied by the examiner as in the
above discussed rejection of claims 11, 21 through 30, 37 and
38. Burtis is relied on for teaching "a container (1,2)
having at least one enlarged portion frictionally releasably
held in the central opening (12) of the roll (9)" (answer,
page 8).
We shall sustain this rejection.
Appellant's disclosed prior art as shown by the blister
package in figures 8 and 9 is described as "[t]he blister
package can be sized to be inserted into and frictionally held
inside the tubular opening" (specification, page 1). As shown
in appellant's figures 8 and 9 the blister package is tubular
and has an enlarged portion (spanned by label 35) which at its
extremities has ridge portions which frictionally contact the
interior of the tubular opening of the label roll(s). With
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007