Appeal No. 2006-3002
Application No. 10/399,820
smaller that the cooled interior storage space and having the separate insulated
compartment at the same temperature as the freezer, other than from using appellant’s
invention as a template for modifying the prior art.
In sum, because Shueh does not disclose a separate, thermally insulated
compartment that is smaller than the cooled interior food storage space, and is about
the same temperature as the cooled interior food storage space, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 5.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to claims 6-8, we cannot sustain the rejections of these claims
because the references to Wilson and Jones fail to make up for the deficiencies of
Shueh.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007