Appeal 2006-2547
Application 10/095,409
Patent 6,237,775
1 The basic and novel property of the claimed food pan is its louvered vents.
2 Appellants have not explained, and it is not apparent to us, how using the
3 claimed food pan in combination with other structures, e.g., a lid, would
4 materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed food pan.
5 For example, covering the claimed food pan, as might be done to protect its
6 food contents prior to serving the food, would not appear to alter materially
7 the pan's ability to hold food or properly ventilate the food contained therein.
8 Thirdly, relating to the argument that Rostkowski is nonanalogous art,
9 the Appellant has put forth no persuasive evidence refuting the Examiner’s
10 finding that the louvered vents of Rostkowski are pertinent to the problem of
11 moving or directing air in a container. (Answer, p. 7, ll. 1-2).
12 Therefore, based on the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of
13 claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 under § 103(a) as
14 unpatentable over Brandenburg in view of Branz and Rostkowski.
15 Rejection of claims 3, 20 and 26 under § 103(a)
16 Claims 3, 20 and 26 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable
17 over Brandenburg in view of Branz and Rostkowski, as applied to claims 1,
18 18 and 24 above, and further in view of Meyer.
19 According to the Examiner, the combination of Bradenburg, Branz
20 and Rostkowski "discloses the invention except for a connecting side wall of
21 the louver. Meyer teaches a vent and louver wherein the louver has a
22 connecting side wall. It would have been obvious to add a side wall in order
23 to reinforce and support the louver in a specific position." [Answer, 6.]
24 Appellants contend that Meyer "would never be considered reasonably
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013