Appeal No. 2006-1258 Page 5
Application No. 10/243,241
motivation would have been that provided by Whitecar, i.e., to
enable air circulation between the ice packs and their adjacent
surfaces.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7 and 9-11.2
2 In the event of further prosecution the examiner and the appellants should
address on the record whether, in view of Whitecar’s disclosure that the main
container can have “the geometrical form of a pan, dish, or the like” (col. 5,
lines 18-20), i.e., a tray, Whitecar would have fairly suggested the
appellants’ claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007