Appeal 2007-2893
Application 10/818,885
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Park. Claim 1 is drawn to a cooking container. Claims
2, 4-10, 12, and 13 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION:
The cooking container of claim 1 comprises (1) a shell; (2) a second
heat-conductive plate; and (3) a synthetic, silicon heat transfer oil filling.
Claim 1 requires the shell to have a top opening and a first heat-
conductive plate bottom. The first heat-conductive plate bottom is to
distribute applied heat to food contents within the shell.
Claim 1 requires that the second heat-conductive plate extend
downwardly from the first plate to form a sealed cavity of predetermined
volume therebetween. In addition, claim 1 requires that the second heat-
conductive plate is adapted for placement directly on an open flame or
burner. We find that the phrase adapted for placement directly on an open
flame or burner language is a positive structural limitation, not merely a
description of the intended use of the claimed invention (Cf. Answer 4-5).
See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958-59, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
Lastly, claim 1 requires that the cavity formed between the first and
second plates is filled to at least 95 percent of its volume with a synthetic
silicon heat transfer oil.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013