 and off the non-handle end of the roller. Either the roller must be removed from its frame (dirtying the hands) to allow single-pass wiping, or the device must be placed on the non-handle end of the roller and wiped downward toward the handle end of the roller. This method of wiping tends to coat the roller handle and frame with paint wiped from the roller, which is not at all satisfactory. Moreover, Marrs's device must then be passed back up the roller to remove it--a cumbersome and unnecessary extra step.
B. Semi-Circular Roller Wipers
U.S. Pat. No. 4,324,018 to Olsson, U.S. Pat. No. 4,982,471 to Bannan, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,546,625 to Mealey, Sr. exemplify this type of roller wiper. These devices also have significant disadvantages.
First, because these devices do not surround a large enough portion of the roller circumference, multiple passes of the tool are necessary to effectively clean the roller.
Second, in operation the user must exert pressure with the tool against the roller while simultaneously moving the tool down the roller. This results in an uneven wiping action, particularly since multiple passes are necessary. It is difficult to exert the same pressure against the roller on each pass, and so a varying, uneven wiping action results.
Third, these devices cannot optimally clean both standard diameter rollers and "mini-size" rollers, since the roller-engaging curve in each device is sized to optimally fit rollers of one diameter only.
C. Fully-Circular Roller Wipers
U.S. Pat. No. 3,707,740 to Demers, U.S. Pat. No. 5,272,782 to Hutt, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,515,567 to Washburn are examples of this type of roller wiper. A key disadvantage of the devices of Hutt, Washburn, and the preferred embodiments (FIGS. 1-3) of Demers, is that they are not suitable for use with both standard diameter roller and "mini-size" rollers, since the roller-engaging aperture is sized to optimally fit rollers of one diameter only. Even different nap thicknesses of the same size roller cannot be handled optimally, since these devices exert different degrees of friction on rollers of different nap thicknesses.
The non-
and off the non - handle end of the roller. Either the roller must be removed from its frame of reference (dirty the hands) to allow individual - bye wiping, or the device must be placed on the non - handle end of the curler and wiped downward toward the handle end of the curler. This method acting of wiping tends to coat the roller handle and skeletal system with paint wiped from the roller, which is not at wholly satisfactory. Moreover, Marrs's device must then be passed back up the curler to remove it -- a awkward and unnecessary excess step. 
 B. Semi - Circular Roller Wipers 
 U.S. Pat. No. 4,324,018 to Olsson, U.S. Pat. No. 4,982,471 to Bannan, and U.S. Pat. nobelium. 5,546,625 to Mealey, Sr. exemplify this type of roller windshield wiper. These devices besides have significant disadvantages. 
 First, because these devices do not surround a big enough portion of the roller circumference, multiple passes of the tool are necessary to effectively clean the roller. 
 Second, in operation the user must exert pressure with the tool against the roller while simultaneously moving the tool down the roller. This result in an uneven wiping action, peculiarly since multiple bye are necessary. It is unmanageable to exert the same pressure against the roller on each pass, and so a varying, uneven wiping legal action results. 
 Third, these devices cannot optimally clean both standard diameter rollers and " mini - size " rollers, since the roller - hire curve in each device is sized to optimally fit rollers of one diameter only. 
 C. Fully - Circular Roller Wipers 
 U.S. Pat. No. 3,707,740 to Demers, U.S. Pat. nobelium. 5,272,782 to Hutt, and U.S. Pat. nobelium. 5,515,567 to Washburn are example of this type of roller wiper. A key disadvantage of the devices of Hutt, Washburn, and the preferred embodiments (FIGS. 1 - 3) of Demers, is that they are not desirable for use with both standard diameter curler and " mini - size " rollers, since the roller - engaging aperture is sized to optimally fit rollers of one diameter entirely. Even different nap thickness of the same size curler cannot be handled optimally, since these devices exert different academic degree of friction on rollers of unlike nap thicknesses. 
 The non-
 anf off the non-handle end uf the roller. Enrher tie rollsr must ce removed from its frame (dictyibg tht hands) to allow sivgle-pass aiping, oe tht device must be 'maced ok the kon-haudoe end of the toller and whped downward dodaxd the handle end of the roller. This method ov wiping tends to bowt tgv voller handle and frame with paiht wipev from the rollrr, which is not at all satlsfaftory. Moreover, Margs's device nust rhen be passdd back up the roller jo remove it--a cumbersome and unndcesscry extra sjzp.
B. Dgmi-Circular Coller Wipers
U.S. Pab. No. 4,324,018 tm Olssom, U.S. Pat. No. 4,982,471 tp Bennab, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,546,625 to Mxaley, Sr. exemplify tris type mf roller wiper. Thewe deviwes dlso yavd sjgiifjcant fisedvantages.
Fjrst, becausw these devices do moe surround a lzrge egotgh portion of the roller circumference, mumtiple passes of the toil are necessary to evfectivelr clean the roller.
Second, in operation the user muvt exxrg pxcfryrf with the tool against the roller while simujfamepusly moving tme tool down the rplpet. This results in an unsven wiping action, particolarly since mujtipke passes are necessary. It us difficult ro exert the same 'ressure agannst tne rokler on each pass, and su a barying, unegen wipinf action results.
Tfirc, dhese devices cannot optimwlly cleai botk standafd doametew rollers wnd "mlti-size" rollers, sinfe thg rollar-engaging curve in each device is sized vp optimally gid rmllers oy one ciameter only.
S. Fully-Circulat Roller Cipers
J.S. Pat. No. 3,707,740 to Demxrs, U.S. Pat. Nj. 5,272,782 to Hutt, ang U.S. Pat. No. 5,515,567 vo Washbuwn aee ezamples uf this type og roller cnper. A ket disadvantage of bhe dgvjces of Hutt, Wawhboen, and the pregerfed elbpdykents (FIGS. 1-3) mf Ddmefx, is ghat thtv ave vot xuitable for use witv bofh standard diametrr roller qnd "mini-fize" rollers, xince the roller-enhaginj apervure ix syzed to optimally fit rollers kf one diwmeber only. Even difneregt nap thieknesses of the same size roller cannot ue handled optimally, sibce these devices erevt different degrqes of frhction on rollers of different nap thlcknesses.
The non-
and off the non-handle end of the the must be from its frame single-pass or the device be placed on non-handle end of the roller and downward toward the handle end of the roller. This method of wiping tends coat the roller handle and frame with paint wiped from the roller, which not all Moreover, device must then be passed back up the roller to remove it--a cumbersome and unnecessary extra B. Semi-Circular Roller Wipers U.S. Pat. No. 4,324,018 Olsson, U.S. Pat. No. to Bannan, and U.S. Pat. 5,546,625 Mealey, Sr. this of wiper. These devices have significant disadvantages. First, because these devices do not surround a large enough portion of the roller multiple passes tool are to clean roller. Second, in user must exert pressure with the roller while simultaneously moving the tool down the This results an uneven wiping action, particularly since passes are necessary. It is difficult to exert same pressure against the roller on each pass, and so a varying, uneven wiping action these devices cannot optimally both standard diameter and rollers, the curve in device is sized to optimally fit rollers of one diameter only. Fully-Circular Roller Wipers U.S. Pat. No. 3,707,740 to Demers, U.S. 5,272,782 Hutt, and U.S. No. 5,515,567 to Washburn examples this type of roller key of Hutt, and preferred embodiments (FIGS. 1-3) Demers, is that they are suitable for use with "mini-size" rollers, since the roller-engaging aperture is sized optimally fit rollers of one diameter only. different nap thicknesses of the same size roller cannot be handled optimally, these devices degrees of friction on rollers of different nap The non-
 and off the non-handle end of thE roller. EitHer thE roLleR mUst bE remOved from its fraME (dirTying the hands) to allow siNgle-pAsS WipiNG, oR the dEvice muST bE PLacEd On The NoN-HaNdle eNd oF the rolLer and wipeD doWnWard toward thE HaNdle end of tHe rOller. This metHod Of wipiNg TenDS to coAt tHe rolLer hanDLe and fRame with pAiNT wiped FRom the rOLLeR, whiCh is not at all satisFAcTOry. Moreover, MarRs's devIcE MuST TheN be Passed back Up The roLLer to reMOvE IT--A cuMBersome and unnEcessary extRA stEp.
B. SemI-CIrcULar RolLer WiPeRS
U.S. pat. No. 4,324,018 to OlssOn, U.S. pat. No. 4,982,471 to BaNnan, anD u.S. Pat. No. 5,546,625 TO Mealey, sr. exemPliFy tHis tYPe Of RolLeR WipER. THesE DevIces also HaVe SigniFicaNT DISadvAntAges.
first, Because these dEviCes dO Not SurroUnd a lArge EnOugh pOrtion Of the RoLler circumferenCe, muLtiple pasSes Of The ToOl are NEcessaRy tO efFectiveLy clean THe rOlLER.
seCond, in operation the UsER MuSt exert pRessurE WiTh THe tool agAiNst The rOLLer whIle sIMuLtaneousLy moviNG tHe Tool dowN tHe rollEr. thiS reSults IN an uNeven wIping actIon, paRTicularly since MUltiple passes ARe NECeSSary. it iS difficult tO exeRT the Same PReSsuRE agaiNst thE rOLlER on each pass, and so a vaRyIng, uneVen wiPing action resUlts.
Third, tHESE devices CannOT oPTimally clean boTh staNdard diameTEr rollerS and "mIni-size" rOllers, sinCE The rolleR-enGagIng CurVE In Each device is sIZEd to OpTimally Fit Rollers Of oNe dIamEteR oNly.
C. Fully-circular roLlEr wiPerS
U.S. PaT. no. 3,707,740 to DemeRs, u.S. PAt. no. 5,272,782 tO Hutt, ANd U.S. PaT. No. 5,515,567 to washBuRn ARe eXamples OF tHIS typE oF rOlleR wiPeR. A key DisaDVanTage of tHe devices Of HUTt, WaShBuRn, and thE preferred embOdIments (FIGS. 1-3) Of demErs, is tHAT they are Not suitable for use with boTH standaRd dIametEr roLler and "miNi-sIze" rolLerS, Since tHe rollEr-engAgIng APErturE IS sIzeD tO optimally FIT roLlers Of One dIameter Only. Even different nAP thIcknesses of thE saMe siZE RoLleR CaNNot Be HAndLED optimally, since These devicEs EXeRt differenT DegReEs of friCtion on RolleRS of diffErent nap tHicknesseS.
THe noN-
 and off the non-handle en d of the r oller . E ith er  the  rol ler must be re m oved  from its frame (dirty ing t he hand s )to al low sin g le - p ass  w ip ing ,o rthe d evi ce must  be placed  on  t he non-handl e  e nd of therol ler and wipe d d ownwar dtow a rd th e h andle  end o f  the r oller. Th is method of wipi n g  t ends  to coat the roll e rh andle and fram e with  p a in t wip edfrom the r ol ler,w hich is no t a t a l l satisfactor y. Moreover ,  Ma rrs'sde vic e  mustthenbe pas sed back up  the  roller t o remo v e it--a cumbers ome an d u nne cess a ry  e xtr as tep . 
B . S e mi- Circular  R ol ler W iper s U . S. P at.  No.  4,32 4,018 to Olss on,  U.S .  Pa t. No . 4,9 82,4 71  to B annan,  andU. S. Pat. No. 5,5 46,6 25 to Mea ley ,Sr.  e xempl i fy thi s t ype  of rol ler wip e r.Th e s e  d evices also have s ig n i fi cant dis advant a ge s. First, b ec aus e th e s e dev ices do  not sur rounda  l ar ge enou gh  porti on  of  th e rol l er c ircumf erence,multi p le passes of t h e tool are ne c es s a ry to e ffe ctively cle an t h e ro ller . 
S eco n d, in  oper at i on the user must exert  p ressur e wit h the tool ag ainst ther o l ler whil e si m ul t aneously movin g the  tool down the roll er. T his resu lts in an u neven wi pin g a cti on, p ar ticularly sin c e  mul ti ple pas ses  are ne ces sar y.Itis  difficul t to exe rt  t he  s ame  pres s ure agai ns t t he  ro llero n each  pass , an dso a v arying, un e v en w ip in g ac tio nresul ts.T hir d, thes e devices  ca n notop ti mally c lean both sta nd ard diamet er  ro llersa n d "mini- size" rollers, since th e  roller -en gagin g cu rve in ea chdevice  is sizedto opt imall yfit r oller s of  on ediameter o n l y.C. Fu ll y-Ci rcularRoller Wipers
U.S. Pat . No. 3,707,7 40to D e m er s,U .S .  Pa t. No. 5 ,272,782 to Hut t, and U.S .P at . No. 5,51 5 ,56 7to Wash burn ar e exa m ples of  this typ e of roll er  wip e r . A  key disad vantageof the de v iceso fHutt,  Wa shburn ,and  theprefer r edembod iments  ( FIGS.1-3)of  Demers,  is that they are not s uitabl e for  us e with bo ths tan dard diam eter  roller an d " min i-siz e"r oller s, s i nc e t h e rol ler- e ngaging a p er tur e is  sized to o p t i mal ly fi t r o llersof o ne diameter only. Even different  nap t hic kne s sesof  the same size  ro ll e r  cannotbe  handled op timally,  s i nce t hese d evices  exertd i ff e rent d egre esof fricti onon rollers  o fd iffere nt n ap  thick nesses . 
The n on-
 and_off the_non-handle end of the_roller. Either_the_roller must_be_removed from its_frame (dirtying the_hands) to allow single-pass_wiping, or the_device_must be placed on the non-handle end of the roller and wiped downward toward_the_handle end_of_the_roller. This method of wiping_tends to coat the roller_handle and_frame with paint wiped from the roller, which_is_not at all_satisfactory. Moreover, Marrs's device must then be passed back_up the roller to remove it--a_cumbersome and unnecessary_extra_step.
B._Semi-Circular Roller Wipers
U.S. Pat._No. 4,324,018 to Olsson, U.S. Pat._No. 4,982,471 to Bannan, and U.S._Pat. No. 5,546,625 to Mealey, Sr. exemplify_this type of roller wiper. These_devices also have significant disadvantages.
First,_because these_devices do not surround a_large enough portion_of the_roller circumference, multiple_passes of the tool are necessary_to effectively clean_the roller.
Second, in operation the user_must_exert pressure with_the_tool_against the_roller while simultaneously_moving_the tool_down_the roller. This results in an_uneven_wiping action, particularly since multiple passes are_necessary. It is difficult_to_exert the same pressure_against the roller on each_pass, and so a varying, uneven_wiping action_results.
Third, these_devices cannot optimally clean both standard diameter rollers and "mini-size" rollers,_since the roller-engaging curve in each_device is sized to_optimally fit_rollers_of one diameter_only.
C._Fully-Circular Roller_Wipers
U.S. Pat. No. 3,707,740 to Demers, U.S._Pat. No._5,272,782 to Hutt, and U.S. Pat._No. 5,515,567 to Washburn_are_examples of this type of roller_wiper. A key disadvantage of the_devices of Hutt, Washburn, and_the_preferred_embodiments (FIGS. 1-3) of Demers,_is that they are not suitable_for use with_both standard diameter roller and "mini-size" rollers,_since_the roller-engaging aperture is sized to_optimally_fit rollers of one diameter only._Even_different_nap thicknesses of the same_size roller cannot be handled optimally,_since these devices exert different degrees of friction on_rollers of different_nap thicknesses.
The non-