Appeal 2007-2096
Application 10/611,765
different prior art. Accordingly, we consider the record anew. See In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Buj discloses a plate with
a statuette of a dolphin affixed to the upper surface of the plate, which plate
differs from the claimed dinnerware article in the absence of a graphical diet
reminder on the upper surface (Answer 3). The Examiner finds Strandberg
teaches a plate with a graphical diet reminder thereon directed to children;
Frucher teaches a plate with a Passover Seder graphical diet reminder
thereon; and Brenkus teaches a plate having a number of different shaped
compartments for use in a method in which cards with indicia representing
food choices are inserted into the corresponding shaped compartments
(Answer 3-4). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to add graphical diet reminders to Buj’s
dinnerware as taught by Strandberg, Frucher, and Brenkus in the expectation
of providing nutrition education with respect to food choices (id. 4). With
respect to claim 16, the Examiner contends it would have been obvious to
modify the dolphin affixed to Buj’s plate with the likeness of a pig as a
matter of design choice (id.).
With respect to claims 17 and 18, the Examiner finds Buj’s dolphin is
not hollow and Gruneisen III discloses a container that has a removable
basketball on the lip thereof, wherein the basketball is hollow, has a bottom,
and a removable top (Answer 4-5). The Examiner concludes it would have
1 Our review of the official electronic record of the USPTO for this
application reveals that Brenkus is not of record. The Examiner should
attend to this matter subsequent to the disposition of this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013