Appeal No. 1997-2960
Application 08/368,897
prior art could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner must explain why the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
desirability of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at
1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84.
The examiner has not explained why the combined teachings
of the applied prior art references would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the
modification proposed by the examiner. Bliley desires to cook
for the same time period all of two separately frozen portions
of the contents of a hermetically sealed container (col. 3,
lines 70-74). The examiner has not explained why Mattson’s
teaching regarding the use of pouches would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to remove a portion the contents of
Bliley’s container, which apparently would be the upper,
starch food portion, prior to the completion of the heating of
other contents of the container, which apparently would be the
lower, condiment or sauce portion. Also, the examiner has not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007