Appeal No. 2005-1180
Application No. 09/791,298
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We further note that the rejections of claims 11-15 and claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) have been remanded for reasons similar to those discussed here. See sections "F."
through "H.," supra. However, in the case of claims 11-19, "it is essential to know what the
claims do in fact cover" before the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) can be properly
considered. Steele, 305 F.2d at 862, 134 USPQ at 295. In contrast, the rejections of claims 31-
35 and claims 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed for reasons which do not relate
to the inconsistency noted above, i.e., the location of the self-heating meal. See section "I.,"
supra.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Peiker is affirmed. The rejection of claims 50-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Peiker and JP '628A is affirmed. The rejection of claim
56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, JP '628A
and Pickard is affirmed. The rejection of claims 5, 6, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker and Cramer is affirmed. The rejection of
claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker
and Sorensen is remanded. The rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Sorensen and Cramer is remanded. The rejection
of claims 20-23, 26-28, 38-42 and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007