Ex parte SIMHAEE - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-0358                                                        
          Application No. 09/076,356                                                  


          roll on a hollow cylindrical core, comprising                               
               a one piece, integral molded plastic body having a bottom              
          panel, sidewalls extending upwardly from said bottom panel,                 
          and means for separating individual bags from said roll,                    
          wherein said sidewalls converge from said bottom panel so as                
          to apply a braking force to a core supported between said                   
          sidewalls, said sidewalls each including an inner stub axle                 
          for receiving an end of said hollow cylindrical core, the                   
          diameters of the stub axles relative to the inner diameter of               
          the core being such that the core can rotate on the axles but               
          its rotation is retarded by friction between the inner surface              
          of said core and the stub axles.                                            
                                    THE PRIOR ART                                     
               The references relied on by the examiner to support the                
          final rejection are:                                                        

          Adams                              3,799,466           Mar. 26,             
          1974                                                                        
          Anderson                           4,771,966           Sep. 20,             
          1988                                                                        
          Kannankeril et al.(Kannankeril)    5,813,585           Sep. 29,             
          1998                                                                        
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as              
          being unpatentable over Kannankeril in view of Adams.                       

               Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being              
          unpatentable over Kannankeril in view of Adams and Anderson.                

               Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply                
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007