Appeal No. 2005-0866
Application No. 09/971,739
that the examiner's rejections are well-founded and supported by
the prior art evidence relied upon. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejections.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of all the
appealed claims under § 103 over the collective teachings of
Morrison and Wohl.
Wohl, like appellant, discloses a method of making a
decorative candle. There is no dispute that the process of Wohl
includes the formation of an intermediate product, or item, which
comprises a shell of wax with a void therein that may receive an
inner core of wax. While appellant urges that the shell of Wohl
is an intermediate product, the claims on appeal do not preclude
the claimed item from being an intermediate product. Further-
more, since Wohl expressly teaches that the consumable low
melting point fill wax can be added to the void of the outer
shell, we are confident that one of ordinary skill the art would
have understood that the addition of the fill wax is optional.
For example, we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to place a separate candle in the
void of the outer shell for illuminating the design on the outer
shell.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007