Appeal 2006-2547
Application 10/095,409
Patent 6,237,775
1 plenum, thereby contributing to the sanitary condition of the food
2 preparation table (col. 9, l. 10 - col. 10, l. 3).
3 According to the Examiner,
4 [i]t would have been obvious to add louvers to the
5 exterior of the vented passages of Brandenburg as
6 exemplified by Rostkowski's integral louvers at the
7 venting area of a container so that air is directed in
8 a downward direction for the reasons advanced by
9 Branz, specifically, so that air entering the louver
10 openings is guided to travel in a downward
11 direction at about a 45 degree angle as motivated
12 by preventing food from falling inside the complex
13 wall structure of the plenum (see column 9, line 45
14 to column 10, line 3 of Branz). [Answer, 5.]
15 In other words, "[f]ood which moves from an inner food holding area past
16 either the vents or the louver will contaminate an interstitial space and this is
17 unsanitary and not desirable" (Answer, 7).
18 Appellants argue that the Examiner's obviousness statement fails to
19 specifically point out any teaching or suggestion in Brandenburg, Branz or
20 Rostkowski that would have motivated a skilled artisan to combine these
21 references or otherwise modify Brandenburg to solve the problem
22 confronting Appellants, especially since none of Branz's pans have louvered
23 vents (Reply Br. 5-6). According to Appellants, "[t]he Examiner has done
24 no more than successfully identify within the prior art the individual
25 elements constituting the claimed invention and then presented the
26 functionality of these features as the needed motivation for one to combine
27 these elements so as to render the invention obvious" (id., 7). Appellants
28 attack Bradenburg, Branz and Rostkowski individually and contend that they
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013