Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to substitute the
partition separating means of Ooyama with a second inner bag, because the
partition is a simpler construction (Br. 10). Appellant's argument is not
persuasive. Ooyama discloses that the substance to be mixed with the liquid
from the first inner bag can be contained in a separate bag (13) or separated
by a partition (68).
Appellant argues that Ooyama does not include an enabling disclosure
for arranging the liquid accommodation bag, below the food components
(Br. 10). We do not agree. Ooyama discloses placing the liquid containing
accommodation bag beneath the food product. (See page 14).
Appellant argues that Ooyama fails to teach or suggest placing the
vapor-releasing hole in the upper part of the liquid accommodation bag, and
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vent should
be formed at the bottom of the liquid containing bag (Br. 11). Appellant's
argument is not persuasive. Ooyama suggests that the liquid
accommodation bag can be located within the outer bag/container to provide
steam for cooking the food. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
sufficient skill to choose the appropriate location for the vapor releasing vent
corresponding to the claimed upper bag location. Appellants have not
substantiated their arguments with respect to the alleged unobviousness of
the steam vent location with any persuasive evidence.
Claims 21 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as obvious
over Ooyama and Hoffman. We select claim 21 as a representative of the
rejected claims.
The Examiner asserts that Hoffman teaches that it was known to
provide a heating element in the liquid holding portion of a container for the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007