Appeal No. 1999-2102 Page 4
Application No. 08/715,990
greater when the roll is at least partially depleted and supported in the lower portion of the
tracks than when in the upper portion.
It is the examiner’s view that all of the claimed structure is disclosed by Wheeler,
except for the tongue, which is shown by Richardson. The examiner goes on to conclude
that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wheeler
by providing a ripping tongue “in order to facilitate the dispensing of the rolled material”
(Answer, page 3). The appellant has advanced a number of arguments in opposition to
the examiner’s rationale and conclusion, including the allegation that there is no suggestion
to combine the references in the manner proposed by the examiner. It is this argument that
we find to be dispositive of the issue in the appellant’s favor.
Wheeler discloses a toilet tissue dispenser comprising a pair of spaced apart,
shaped tracks for receiving the opposite ends of an axle upon which the roll of toilet tissue
is mounted. The tracks are positioned so that the axle can fall within the tracks under the
influence of gravity, in the same fashion as in the appellant’s device, and the roll contacts a
back surface due to its weight. The appellant has conceded that the Wheeler device
operates in the same fashion as the claimed device with regard to the force components
and relationships recited in claim 11 (Brief, page 5). Wheeler states that the toilet paper
on the roll is “either perforated or incised so as to give sheets of any predetermined length”
(page 1, lines 59-61). The reference does not, however, disclose or teach any mechanism
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007