Appeal No. 2003-0104 Page 10
Application No. 09/659,792
The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore and
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11
to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REMAND
We remand the application to the examiner for the following further
considerations:
(1) Determine if Leslie's teaching (column 4, lines 24-27) that "the keg may be smaller
than the dimensions of cavity 18, thereby allowing space for ice cubes to surround the
keg" teaches or suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the cavity 18 can be
sized to provide a tight fit with a keg;
(2) Determine if the airflow passageway recited in claim 11 is readable on a top opening
of an insulated carrier/container wherein when a keg is removed from the
carrier/container air is allowed to flow into the carrier/container via the top opening;
(3) Based upon the above-noted determinations, determine whether or not claims 11
and 12 are anticipated by Leslie;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007