Appeal No. 2004-1304
Application 08/730,625
the temperature of food without dipping the feeding end of the
utensil into the food (claim 26). Thus, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on “Soft Bite Utensils,” the “Too Hot” package, Heinmets
and Biolik.
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is
that of claims 1 through 8, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the “Too Hot” package in view of “Soft
Bite Utensils.” The examiner’s position regarding this rejection
is set forth on pages 10-11 of Paper No. 28. For essentially the
same reasons as set forth in connection with the two § 103
rejections discussed immediately above concerning these same
claims, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 5, 7 and 8, but not that of claims 6, 25 and 26. Like
the examiner, it is our view that the collective teachings of the
“Too Hot” package and “Soft Bite Utensils” would have rendered
the subject matter defined in claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 on
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention, and thus resulted in a combination of
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007