Appeal No. 2005-1180
Application No. 09/791,298
claim 5. However, the examiner points to Cramer as teaching a meal assembly carton having
scored lines or partial perforations in a top wall which outline aperture areas that may be pushed
through the top wall of the tray “as needed” to create apertures. See Figure 4, reference
numeral 24; col. 2, lines 21-24. The examiner concludes that (Answer, p. 7):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the
scored apertures of Cramer into the invention of Peiker since both are directed to
meal assembly cartons, since Peiker already included a top wall with apertures
(Figure 1, #32), as well as score lines (Figure 1, #28-29 & 35), since scored
aperture areas were commonly used in meal cartons as shown by Cramer (Figure
4, #24), and since the scored aperture areas of Cramer can be removed as needed,
thereby preserving more of the carton's strength if all of the apertures are not
required.
Appellants argue that neither Peiker nor Cramer disclose an "insulating first
compartment" as required by claim 1. Brief, p. 16. We disagree. For the reasons set forth in
section "A." above, Peiker inherently describes an "insulating first compartment."
Appellants further argue that Peiker and Cramer teach away from each other. First,
appellants argue that Peiker does not disclose locking members as in Cramer which facilitate
removal of the perforated areas 24. Second, appellants argue that Peiker discloses a tray with
openings. Therefore, it is not feasible to punch out perforated areas as in Cramer. Finally,
appellants argue that the tray in Cramer is not divided into multiple compartments as in Peiker.
See Brief, pp. 16-17.
Significantly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually,
as appellants have done, where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007