Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
receiving recesses by providing a flat bottom and thin ridges
which project upwardly from the flat bottom. Anderson teaches
providing food recesses by providing a flat top portion which
define ?peripheral rims? and shallow food receiving recesses
projecting downwardly therefrom. Taken as a whole, these
references establish that the structure utilized by each of
these references for providing for food receiving recesses are
art-recognized alternatives which are well known, and the
respective advantages and disadvantages of each would have
been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Heinrich, 268 F.2d 753, 756, 122 USPQ 388, 390 (CCPA 1959).
With respect to claim 20, Hintze at 10 clearly teaches a cup-
shaped well ?between? the recesses.
In view of the above, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejections.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mackey in view of Anderson. As we
have noted above with respect to the rejection of claim 16,
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007