Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
Keller at 642 F.2d 425, 208 USPQ 881, we are of the opinion
that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it
obvious to make the first pocket of Mackey oval in shape in
order to achieve Anderson’s self-evident advantage of
accommodating elongated articles. Therefore, we will sustain
the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning last the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey in view of Hintze, the
examiner is of the opinion that it would have been obvious to
provide the body portion of Mackey with first and second flat
members surrounded by peripheral rims to define shallow food
receiving recesses in view of the teachings of Hintze. The
appellants, however, contend that ?there is no hint or
suggestion in either of the references as [to] how the
teaching of Hintze might be combined with Mackey to meet the
elements of the claimed combination.? We are unpersuaded by
the appellants’ arguments. Mackey teaches providing food
to those of ordinary skill in the art.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007