Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999
discloses that the liquid may escape in the form of vapor. It is our opinion
that this disclosure conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
Appellant had possession of the invention as presently claimed.
Consequently, the Examiner's rejection is reversed.
We now turn to the prior art rejections.
Rejections Under §103 (a).
Upon careful consideration of the positions presented by the Examiner
and the Appellant, we agree with the Examiner's stated rejections. Our
reasons follow.
Claims 20, 22-25, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as
obvious over Ooyama. We select claim 20 as representative of the rejected
claims.
The Examiner asserts that Ooyama describes an outer container (bag)
that comprises a liquid accommodation bag that is liquid impermeable and a
second inner bag that is liquid permeable and comprises a substance to be
mixed with vapor (Final Rejection 3-4). The Examiner asserts that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to provide the liquid accommodation bag with a steam pressure
release valve for steaming products in the described second accommodation
bag. In this regard, Ooyama suggests a steaming option (p. 14).
Appellant argues that Ooyama does not disclose a steam pressure
releasing vent in the liquid accommodation bag and that Ooyama’s element
(31) is disclosed only to discharge liquid rather than steam (Br. 9). We do
not agree with this argument. We agree with the Examiner that Ooyama
suggests using a vent the vent for the liquid containing bag that is suitable
for releasing vapor (Page 14).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007