Appeal No. 2006-0930
Application No. 09/905,540
not present any calculations or other evidence demonstrating
that the examiner’s calculated snack chip projected area is
incorrect. (FF32.)
After considering this evidence, the examiner concluded
5 (answer at 4; FF33) that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) to combine Zimmerman with Snack-A-Dip® (Lightly Salted
Tortilla Chips & Salsa) as follows:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
10 the art to incorporate the tub of dip and the lid of
Snack-a-Dip into the kit of Zimmerman et al since both
are directed to chip containers, since the chips of
Zimmerman et al were commonly eaten with dip, since it
was commonly known and practiced to provide a tub of
15 dip within the chip canister as shown by Snack-a-Dip
(see Sample), since the removable lid of 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
20 of dip for the 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.
25 We are in complete agreement with the examiner. Zimmerman
expressly teaches that snack chips and fluid condiments “are a
very popular snack combination.” (¶0010 at 1.) Even the
appellant admits that unitary packages including such
combinations are well known. (Specification at 2, lines 27-28;
30 FF15.) As evidenced by the Snack-A-Dip® (Lightly Salted Tortilla
22
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007