Appeal No. 1998-2418 Application No. 08/686,883 an open end at the enlarged portion, a peelable cover closing off the open end . . . ." Although Jones discusses frictional engagement with respect to the disadvantageous prior art packages, the article containing package 10 of Jones' preferred embodiment is not disclosed as being in frictional engagement with the central opening, rather "the article containing chamber 20 has a maximum transverse dimension which is slightly less than the transverse dimension of the opening 14" (col.3, lines 38-41), i.e. it is not in frictional engagement. Lane and Burtis are applied by the examiner for an enlarged container portion and an enlargement on the container for frictional engagement, respectively, the suggestion being that such modification is obvious as stated in the answer at page 8. However, no acceptable reasoning for combining this feature with appellant's disclosed prior art is given by the examiner. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 35 on this ground. Appellant's arguments with regard to claim 36 assert "the ink roller contacts the closed end and the other end of the ink roller contacts the cover. This results in the ink roller being held captive in the ink roller container . . . {n]one of 12Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007