Appeal No. 2006-0930
Application No. 09/905,540
Snack-a-Dip would have provided an effective
means for sealing the container of Zimmerman et
al, since the dip ratio of Snack-a-Dip would have
provided an appropriate amount of dip for the
5 chips, and since providing dip along with the
chips of Zimmerman et al would have provided
added convenience to the consumer by eliminating
the need to purchase and transport a separate tub
of dip.
10
34. Because a tub of condiment is necessarily denser than
snack chips, it would reasonably appear that the
packed volumetric bulk density would increase when a
tub of dip-condiment is incorporated within
15 Zimmerman’s container of snack chips.
Discussion
By way of background, the examiner entered a final Office
action on January 14, 2004 in which claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 17
20 through 20 were rejected on multiple grounds. (January 14, 2004
final Office action at 2-4; FF1.) In response, the appellant
appealed the rejections set forth in the final Office action.
(Appeal brief filed on October 19, 2004 FF2.) But in a non-
final Office action dated January 7, 2005, the examiner reopened
25 prosecution and entered four new separate grounds of rejection.
(January 7, 2005 Office action at 3-7; FF3.) The present appeal
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007