Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519,999
provided on pages 5 to 6 of the Decision applies equally to the subject
matter of claims 23, 24 and 32. Furthermore, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have sufficient skill to choose the appropriate
location for the placement and attachment of the food containing bag
within the outer bag. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also
understand that a liquid releasing hole would be suitable for an
accommodation bag to release any remaining liquid after the cooking
process had been completed. Appellants have not substantiated their
arguments with respect to the alleged unobviousness of the elements
described in claims 23, 24, and 32 with any persuasive evidence.
Appellant in the Request for Rehearing did not contend there
were errors in the stated reasons in support of the decision.
Claims 21 and 33 are rejected together over the combined
teachings of Ooyama and Hoffman. For this ground of rejection
Appellant did not provide arguments for claim 21 separate from claim
33. The substantive arguments appearing on pages 13 and 14 of the
Brief regarding this basis of rejection were addressed in the Decision
on pages 6-7. Appellant in the Request for Rehearing did not contend
there were errors in the stated reasons in support of the decision.
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed our
decision, it is our determination that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the argued claims on
appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013