Appeal No. 95-0084
Application 07/857,329
On page 4 of the final Office action, the examiner expresses
his position as follows:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to use
the shielded device of Falk with the pouch of Standing
et al. so as to aid in the uniform heating of the food
item while preventing overheating. Using the broadest
interpretation of claim language, the “shielding means”
of the pending claims reads on the device 16 of Falk
and the “enclosure means” reads on the bag (elements
114, 140, 124, 150 or 42) of Standing et al.
We cannot agree with the examiner that the teachings of
Standing and Falk, even if combined, would have resulted in an
apparatus of the type defined by the appellants' independent
claims.
For example, this prior art combination would not include
the independent claim 30 feature of an “enclosure means formed of
microwave radiation transparent material having inwardly facing
substantially rigid surfaces defining an interior cavity, said
enclosure means including means for holding said pouch in said
cavity, ... whereupon an overpressure is created within said
pouch which causes said pouch to expand until said sheet material
thereof presses against said inwardly facing surfaces of said
enclosure means defining said interior cavity, to thereby prevent
further expansion of said pouch”. The examiner's belief that
“the “enclosure means” reads on the bag (elements 114, 140, 124,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007