Ex Parte Scioscio - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-2893                                                                             
                Application 10/818,885                                                                       

                                             INTRODUCTION                                                    
                      The claims are directed to a cooking container.  Claim 1 is illustrative:              
                      1.  A cooking container for transferring heat from an open flame or                    
                burner to food contents therein, comprising:                                                 
                      a shell having a top opening and a first heat-conductive plate bottom                  
                to distribute applied heat to food contents within said shell;                               
                      a second heat-conductive plate adapted for placement directly on said                  
                open flame or burner extending downwardly from said first plate in forming                   
                a sealed cavity therebetween of predetermined volume; and                                    
                      a synthetic, silicon heat transfer oil filling said cavity to at least 95              
                percent of the volume thereof.                                                               

                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show                       
                unpatentability:                                                                             
                Park    US 6,191,393   Feb. 20, 2001                                                         
                      The following evidence is relied upon by the Board:                                    
                Proctor1   US 4,629,866   Dec. 16, 1986                                                      
                      The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:                              
                1.  Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as                  
                unpatentable over Park.                                                                      
                      We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection.                                        




                                                                                                            
                1 Proctor is cited and described by Appellant (Specification 2).                             

                                                     2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013