Appeal No. 2006-1258 Page 3
Application No. 10/243,241
packs (brief, page 4).
Rabenbauer’s disclosure that the ice packs are removably
contained within the device (col. 1, lines 10-11) indicates that
the top portion is removable so that the ice packs can be placed
inside the insulated bottom portion. After the ice packs are
inserted, and before the top portion is put in place, the ice
packs provide a surface capable of holding a temperature
sensitive item. Consequently, Rabenbauer anticipates the cooling
device claimed in the appellants’ claim 1.
Regarding claim 6 the appellants argue that Rabenbauer’s top
surface prevents the ice packs from cooling by conduction (brief,
page 4). Before the top portion is put in place, the ice packs
are capable of cooling, by conduction, a temperature sensitive
item placed directly on them.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, and dependent
claims 2-4 and 8 which are not separately argued.
Rejection of claims 5, 7 and 9-11
over Rabenbauer in view of Whitecar
Whitecar discloses a refrigerant tray (11) having a
bottom (12) which sits on a ledge provided by transversely
arranged spacers or support blocks (17) to space the tray from
the adjacent surface of an inner casing (5) for the purpose of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007