Appeal 2006-2109
Application 10/680,678
1 that Burke does not provide any motivation for modifying the teaching of Helbling.
2 (Br. 19).
3 Thus, the issues pertinent to this appeal are
4 • Whether the rejection of claims 1-6, 11-14, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C.
5 § 103(a) as obvious over Helbling is proper. This issue turns on whether the
6 full and reduced portion meals and prices and the amount donated to charity
7 of the claimed subject matter are shown by Helbling, or they would be
8 predictable variations of Helbling.
9 • Whether the rejection of claims 7-10 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
10 obvious over Helbling and Burke is proper. This issue turns on whether it is
11 proper to combine the teachings of Helbling and Burke.
12
13 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
14 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF), supported by substantial
15 evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
16 Specification
17 01. The Appellant’s disclosure states that “[e]ach reduced-portion meal
18 product comprises the same elements as its corresponding full-portion
19 meal product, but in reduced quantities.” (Specification 4:22-23).
20 02. The Appellant’s disclosure also states that “[a]lthough the present
21 invention has been described herein with respect to particular features,
22 aspects and embodiments thereof, it will be apparent that numerous
23 variations, modifications, and other embodiments are possible within the
24 broad scope of the present invention, and accordingly, all variations,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013