Appeal No. 1999-2102 Page 7
Application No. 08/715,990
We therefore conclude that the combined teachings of Wheeler and Richardson fail
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
independent claim 11. The rejection of claim 11 and of claim 14, which depends
therefrom, is not sustained.
Nor will we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12 and 13. Further
consideration of Gage, which was applied against these two claims for its teaching of
providing an open-topped slot for a dispenser roller, does not overcome the shortcoming
of the other two references.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007