Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
For the same reasons as set forth above in our discussion of
the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on Teasdale, we share
the examiner’s view that the carton/container of Schuster is
fully responsive to the structural features of the container set
forth in claim 1 on appeal and is inherently capable of being
used in the manner set forth in claim 1 to hold rolls of wrapping
paper. In that regard, we consider that the openings (14, 74) in
the support panel (12) of the container in Schuster are sized to
receive an appropriately sized roll of wrapping paper and that
the holding area and support panel of Schuster 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. Appellant has not provided any evidence to
prove that the container in Schuster is not capable of holding
and storing appropriately sized rolls of wrapping paper.
As for claim 15, we share the examiner’s view, as set forth
on page 6 of the answer, that appellant’s specification (page 4)
broadly indicates that attaching edge (28) of the support panel
(24) is provided with “some means” to secure the panel (24) to
the container, and that such broad recitation supports the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007