Appeal No. 2005-1180
Application No. 09/791,298
unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Sorensen and Cramer has been remanded. See
section “G.,” supra. Therefore, the rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Sorensen and Cramer is also remanded. See 37
CFR § 1.75(c) (2003) (“Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the
limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim.”).
I. Rejection of claims 20-23, 26-28, 38-42 and 45-47
Claims 20-23, 26-28, 38-42 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Peiker and Pickard. Claim 20 reads as follows:
20. A self-heating meal assembly, said assembly comprising:
a carton comprising;
a closable insulating first compartment containing a self-heating meal,
said first compartment having a first top wall and a first flap covering a
first opening to said first compartment and a first securing means for releasably
securing said first flap in a first closed position,
a second compartment containing a beverage container,
a hole in a second top wall of said second compartment suitable for
holding said beverage container.
Peiker discloses a carton for holding a meal comprising a closable insulating first
compartment and a second compartment for holding a beverage container. See Figure 1. The
examiner recognizes that the meal in Peiker is not self-heating. Nevertheless, the examiner
relies on the teachings of Pickard to establish that self-heating meals were known in the art.
The examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
incorporate a self-heating meal as in Pickard into the carton of Peiker to eliminate the need "to
operate an oven or other cooking device in order to prepare the meal." See Answer, p. 9.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007