Appeal No. 2005-0308
Application 09/934,349
a base for receiving said cup and provide stability on a horizontal surface, said base
circumscribing a bottom of said cup by a perimeter wall extending upward from said base of a
sufficient distance to prevent sliding of said cup from said base, said perimeter wall being of
limited height such as not to interfere with said handle; and
a heating element retained within said base, said heating element powered by 12 volts
DC as provided by a motor vehicle to maintain the hot temperature of the contents of said cup.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Gordon 5,023,433 Jun. 11, 1991
Stein 6,072,161 Jun. 6, 2000
Vanselow 6,075,229 Jun. 13, 2000
Dam 6,121,585 Sep. 19, 2000
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Vanselow (answer, page 4);
claims 2, 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanselow
in view of Stein (answer, pages 4-5);
claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanselow in view of
Stein as applied to claims 2, 3 and 6, and further in view of Dam (answer, page 6); and
claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanselow in view of
Stein as applied to claims 2, 3 and 6, and further in view of Gordon (answer, pages 6-7)
Appellants group the appealed claims based on the grounds of rejection (brief, page 4;
see also answer, page 3). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claim 1, 2, 4 and 5.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003); see also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13, 2004;
69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported findings advanced by the examiner that as a matter of fact, prima
facie, Vanselow discloses embodiments that include each and every element of the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claim 1, arranged as required by that claim, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675,
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007