Appeal No. 1997-2960
Application 08/368,897
discloses that it was known in the art to separately pouch
each of the main constituents of a frozen meal for separate
microwave heating of each, and was known that the heating
sequence was complex in that each constituent requires a
different heating time and/or preparation (col. 2, lines 40-
49).
The examiner argues that because Bliley discloses keeping
components of a frozen meal separate without the use of
pouches, and Mattson discloses different microwave heating
times for different pouches of food, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different
microwave heating times for components of a frozen meal which
are not in pouches by removing a component from the meal
before the completion of the heating of other components
(answer, pages 8-10).
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007