Appeal No. 1999-0391
Application 08/225,229
words, presuming full knowledge of the prior art in the relevant field, the combination of the applied
references, when taken as a whole, is deemed to fairly teach or suggest appellant’s claimed method of
producing a two-compartment beverage vessel having a lower compartment which is increasable in size
including molding a housing and a base, inserting an attention attracting means (e.g., a light), and sealing
the lower compartment by connecting the base to the housing. Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection found at pages 7 to 8 of the Answer.
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 9 to 10) that Runge and Von Kohorn both teach housings having
opaque chamber walls which do not transmit light, and that these teachings clearly lead away from the
transparent housing of appellant’s invention. As only the Runge reference was
relied upon by the examiner as teaching a transparent housing, we will only address appellant’s
arguments as to this reference. We agree with the examiner (Answer, pages 7 to 8) that Runge teaches
and/or strongly suggests a transparent housing. Specifically, we agree with the examiner that Runge’s
discussion of the lower housing wall (column 4, lines 65 to 68) indicates the housing being transparent
and then coated with an opaque material only as to the lower part. We also note that Runge teaches
that the circular dividing platform 3 is transparent (column 3, lines 56 to 61; column 5 lines 26 to 29;
and column 6, lines 2 to 4) and is integrally formed with the upper and
lower compartment walls to form the housing. Furthermore, our review of claims 13 to 15 of Runge
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007