Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
the artisan as a matter of “common sense” (In re Bozek, supra)
to vary the size of Mackey’s tray as desired.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mackey in view of Anderson as applied in the
rejection of claim 13 above, and in further view of Gregg.
Mackey teaches a tray having various recesses and beverage
receiving wells including a food receiving recess 24 which is
“centrally disposed” with respect to the lateral edges of the
tray. Gregg teaches a tray having various recesses and
beverage receiving wells including a beverage receiving well
15 which is “centrally disposed” with respect to the lateral
edges of the tray. Taken together, Mackey and Gregg establish
that it is known in the art to vary the location of recesses
and beverage receiving wells on a tray as desired. In our
view, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it
obvious to replace the centrally disposed food receiving
recess 24 in the tray of Mackey, as modified by Anderson, with
a centrally disposed beverage receiving well, if for no other
reason, than to achieve the self-evident advantage of
accommodating additional beverage containers.
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007