Appeal 2007-0229
Application 10/968,436
side wall having a first opening proximate the top of the housing and a second
opening proximate the bottom of the housing (Finding of Fact 2). The Examiner
failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness over Davis as to claims 3 and
4.
C. Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lippincott in view of Davis or Hill.
The Examiner found that Lippincott does not disclose multiple doors on the
same side of the cooler (Answer 6). The Examiner found that Davis or Hill are
examples of containers with two separate doors to enter in the housing, which
allow retrieval of an article from door 2 that was placed into the compartment door
1 (Answer 6). For the reasons stated above, Davis does not teach multiple doors
on the same side of the cooler. Hill teaches two doors in the same side of the
container, but the doors are side by side, not one proximate the bottom of the
housing and the other proximate the top of the housing as required by claim 1
(Finding of Fact 6). The Examiner found it would have been obvious in view of
Davis and Hill to prevent the loss of ambient air and to allow manipulation of the
articles from any of the openings (Answer 6). Because neither Davis nor Hill teach
the openings as required by claim 1, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie of
obviousness over the cited references as to claim 1. We also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, and 13-14, because these claim
rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of independent claim 1. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USQP2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013