Appeal No. 2000-0606
Application No. 08/755,435
width to napkin thickness under compression), not the slot
width per se, which is critical in limiting the number of
napkins that can be pulled through the throat at one time.
Claim 5 is directed to the dispensing system alone and not to
the napkins in combination with the dispensing system and,
further, does not specify the dimensions, thickness or
compressibility of the napkins or the ratio of the slot
portion width to napkin thickness. It is also worth repeating
that appellants have not specified precisely what number of
napkins constitutes "a few." In any event, appellants have
provided no evidence showing that a dispensing throat slot
portion minimum width of less than about 1.0 inches yields
substantially different and unexpected results as compared
with a minimum width of 1.0 inches or more. Accordingly, we
conclude that appellants have not shown that the claimed range
of minimum slot portion width is critical so as to patentably
distinguish appellants' claimed invention from the Downham
dispenser. Therefore, we shall sustain the examiner's
rejection of representative claim 5, as well as claims 6-9 and
14-18 which fall therewith, as being unpatentable over
Downham.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007