Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999
purpose of heating the liquid to hydrate a separate permeable compartment.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include an
internal heating element and the liquid accommodation bag of Ooyama
(Final Rejection 6). Appellant does not dispute that Hoffman teaches an
internal heating element for heating a liquid as suggested by the Examiner.
(See Brief, pages 13-14). Appellant's arguments regarding Ooyama's
steaming environment are not persuasive of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s proposed introduction of a heating element in the liquid
accommodation bag of Ooyama based on the combined teachings of the
applied references 3
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman, and Chung. The Examiner relies on the Chung reference
for teaching the use of additional food containing accommodation bags.
Appellant argues that Chung is not combinable with the steaming
embodiment of Ooyama because the additional bags are located above the
liquid containing bag and cannot be located around the first liquid
accommodation bag (Br. 14). Appellant’s purported distinction regarding
the location of the secondary bags is not persuasive. Ooyama discloses that
the food item to be cooked can be separated from the liquid containing bag
through the use of a partition or a separate bag. The inclusion of additional
secondary bags containing various items which need to be cooked would
3 It is noted that the vapor that is released from the liquid accommodation
bag will be trapped inside the outer bag (10). This vapor will build inside
the container until sufficient pressure is obtained to cause the steam-
pressure-releasing vent (21) to open. Thus, it appears that the vapor released
from the liquid containing accommodation bag would surround and
submerge at least a portion of the containers inside the outer bag.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007