Appeal No. 2002-0358
Application No. 09/076,356
of stub axles to the Kannankeril dispenser ostensibly would
hamper, rather than facilitate, removal of the roll.
Furthermore, and as pointed out by the appellant, the proposed
modification of the Kannankeril dispenser in view of Adams
would destroy the self-braking characteristic sought by
Kannankeril. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that
the only suggestion for combining Kannankeril and Adams in the
manner advanced by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claim 2 which depends
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Kannankeril in view of
Adams.
As Anderson’s disclosure of a paper towel dispenser
having an adhesive mounting component does not cure the above
noted shortcomings of the Kannankeril-Adams combination, we
also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 3, which depends from claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Kannankeril in view of Adams and Anderson.
As a final matter, upon return of the application to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007