Appeal No. 2004-1159
Application 10/108,315
In rejecting claims 12, 13 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Monahan, the examiner has expressed the following views
on page 5 of the answer:
With respect to Claims 13 and 21, Monahan is advanced
above. Monahan, column 3, lines 30-32, mention the length
of the holder which above that being claimed. However, it
would have been obvious, as determined through routine
experimentation and optimization, to dimension the roll
holder of Monahan because one of ordinary skill would have
been expected to have routinely experimented to determine
the optimum dimensions for a particular use. For example,
one would select a narrower roll for the purpose of saving
space and/or saving paper.
With respect to Claim 12, Monahan does not mention a
plurality of rolls. However, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality
because it has been held that mere duplication of the
essential parts of a device involve only routine skill in
the art. Such plurality would allow for the ease of
refilling or replacing the roll.
We will not sustain this rejection. Claims 12 and 13 depend
from independent claim 11, and are thus also directed to a
“package for retail sale.” Since we have determined above that
Monahan provides no disclosure or teaching of a package for
retail sale, and since it is apparent that the examiner’s reasons
for rejecting claims 12 and 13 do not otherwise account for this
limitation, it follows that the rejection of dependent claims 12
and 13 will also not 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