Appeal No. 2000-0513
Application 08/803,047
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13 and 28 as
being unpatentable over Fry in view of Maldanis.
Claims 13 and 28 ultimately depend from claims 1 and 16,
respectively, and further require a light for highlighting
products.
Maldanis discloses a multipurpose, refrigerated food
vending machine having lighting devices mounted near display
windows 16 and doors 18 to illuminate the products in the
machine (see column 5, lines 46 through 50).
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that it
would have been obvious in view of Maldanis to provide Fry’s
machine with a light to highlight its products as proposed by
the examiner (see page 4 in the answer), this modification
also fails to cure the above noted deficiencies in the
examiner’s application of Fry against claims 1 and 16.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 13 and 28 as being unpatentable
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007