Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
the examiner that the differences in the intended use of the
container seen in Teasdale Figure 6 and appellant's container do
not patentably distinguish appellant’s claimed container from the
carton/container of Teasdale.
Since we find that the examiner has treated all of the
limitations of claim 1 and agree with the examiner that the
openings (37) in the shelf/support panel (34) of the container in
Teasdale are sized to receive an appropriately sized roll of
wrapping paper and that the holding area and support panel of
Teasdale would permit individual rolls of such wrapping paper to
extend from the support panel through the holding area while a
portion of the rolls of wrapping paper are supported in the
openings formed in the support panel, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Teasdale.
In light of appellant’s grouping of the claims as set forth
on page 3 of the brief (Group 1), it follows that claims 2, 3 and
7 will fall with claim 1 and that the examiner’s rejection of
those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will also be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007