Appeal No. 2005-2412
Application No. 10/018,818
1 still would be improper. This is because the circular
edge region of patentee’s bottom member 12 does not satisfy the
claim 1 requirement that the bottom panel concave-curvature
substantially conforms to the curvature of the snack pieces. As
clearly shown in figure 2 of Baur, the circular shape defined by
the edge region of bottom member 12 does not substantially
conform to the oval shape defined by patentee’s snack pieces.
These deficiencies of Baur are even more pronounced with
respect to independent claim 11 since this claim additionally
requires a bottom panel having certain features involving two
base portions with a bottom panel center disposed therebetween.
We see nothing and the examiner points to nothing in the Baur
patent which would satisfy this requirement of claim 11.
The examiner’s position concerning the Section 103 rejection
of claims 6-9 over Baur in view of Griffith is expressed on page
6 of the Office action mailed May 5, 2004 in the following
manner:
Baur discloses the invention except for the bottom
panel substantially conforming to the curvature of the snack
pieces. Griffith teaches a shaped container bottom formed[1]
1This acknowledged deficiency of Baur is contradictory to
the examiner’s previously discussed position that the Baur patent
anticipatorily satisfies the bottom panel limitations of
independent claims 1 and 11.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007