Ex Parte SANDIN - Page 2




            Appeal No.2000-1098                                                                2              
            Application No. 08/661,415                                                                        




            THE INVENTION                                                                                     

            The invention is directed to a beverage device comprising a beverage pack and a                   
            shield including a first and second member, wherein the shield has the characteristic of          
            substantially encapsulating the beverage pack within the bottom of a vessel.  Additional          
            limitations are provided in the following  illustrative claim.                                    


                                                THE CLAIM                                                     

            Claim 1 is illustrative of appellants’ invention and is reproduced below.                         

            1.  A beverage device to be placed within a vessel having a bottom to add flavor to a liquid      
            in the vessel, the beverage device comprising:                                                    
                   a shield; and                                                                              
                   a beverage pack for adding flavor to the liquid, wherein the beverage pack is              
            attached to the shield,                                                                           
                   wherein the shield includes a first member, at least one sealing layer located between     
            the first member and the beverage pack and a second member,                                       
                   wherein the first member is configured to engage the second member, and                    
                   wherein the shield is configured to substantially encapsulate the beverage pack            

            “embody patentable subject matter.”  See Answer, pages 8 and 9.  In either event, the record is clear that
            the above claims are not before us for consideration.                                             
                   2 Each of the Office actions contains a rejection of claim 11. The Answer however, does not include
            claim 11 in the statement of the rejection.  In the “Response to argument,” Answer, page 5, the rejection of
            claim 11 is included.   Accordingly, we conclude that the omission of claim 11 from the statement of the
            rejection is inadvertent, and we include it in our consideration.                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007