Appeal No. 2006-1258 Page 2
Application No. 10/243,241
THE REFERENCES
Whitecar 2,504,911 Apr. 18, 1950
Rabenbauer 4,064,835 Dec. 27, 1977
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Rabenbauer; claims 6 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Rabenbauer;
and claims 5, 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Rabenbauer in view of Whitecar.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8
over Rabenbauer
Rabenbauer discloses an air-conditioned pet bed comprising a
lower portion (1) having a floor and three sides lined with
insulation (2) inside which is placed reusable, frozen, ice packs
(3), and a perforated top portion (4) having downwardly extending
flanges that fit around the sides of the lower portion (col. 1,
line 29 – col. 2, line 7).
The appellants argue that Rabenbauer’s ice packs do not
provide a surface for holding the item being cooled because the
item is placed on the top portion which, Rabenbauer states
(abstract), prevents direct contact of the item with the ice
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007