Appeal No. 2005-2412
Application No. 10/018,818
by cushioning member 18 that conforms to the curvature of
the snack pieces (see column 2, lines 61-66). It would have
been obvious to modify the bottom of Baur to conform to the
shape of the snack pieces in order to support the piece such
that movement is restricted and the stack of chips remains
in a stable position centered within the container as
motivated by less damage to the chips because the chips are
moving less and the impact if any exist [sic] is minimized.
As reflected by the above quotation, the examiner believes
that Griffith’s teaching at lines 61-66 in column 2 would have
suggested modifying “the bottom of Baur to conform to the shape
of the snack pieces” (id.). However, this column 2 disclosure of
Griffith relates to a cushioning member 18 (e.g., see figures 2,
3, and 3A) which is adapted to be inserted into a snack container
for placement on the container bottom (e.g., see figure 1). This
disclosure certainly would have motivated an artisan to provide
the container of Baur with Griffith’s cushioning member 18 for
placement on Baur’s container bottom in order to thereby obtain
the snack cushioning advantages taught by Griffith (e.g., see
lines 28-53 in column 1). However, this is not the modification2
proposed by the examiner. Instead, the examiner proposes that it
would have been obvious to modify Bauer’s container bottom so as
2Indeed, Griffith expressly teaches the need to provide a
container of the type taught by Baur with additional cushioning
means (see lines 6-25 in column 1), and figure 1 of Griffith
plainly illustrates the result of providing Baur’s container with
Griffith’s cushioning member.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007