Appeal No. 2002-1123
Application No. 09/110,987
table, then wrapped on the table top.” (Column 1, lines 39-41;
column 4, lines 30-33.)
Thus, Garr’s dispenser differs from the invention recited
in appealed claim 1 only in terms of the recited area or size of
the base member. That is, Garr does not specifically disclose
the size of the portion of the generally planar top (17) between
the roll (11) and the cutting blade 46.
As we discussed above, however, Garr teaches that the
dispenser may be used with rolls of varying lengths and that the
rolls may be used to wrap food products on the top of the
wrapping table assembly. For food products larger than the size
of an “average adult human hand,” one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it prima facie obvious to maximize the
surface area of the top of Garr’s wrapping table assembly, thus
arriving at a dispenser encompassed by appealed claim 1, in
order to facilitate the food wrapping process.
We do not have to discuss Stoller because it is not
necessary to support the examiner’s rejection of appealed claim
1.
The appellant argues that Garr “is not directed to
dispensing film with an adhesive on one surface or to dispensing
film to be placed on the hand of an adult user.” (Second appeal
brief, page 4.) This argument fails because appealed claim 1 is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007