Appeal 2007-2893
Application 10/818,885
Claim 6 depends from and further limits the cooking container of
claim 5, requiring that the first and second heat-conductive plates are brazed
together in forming the sealed cavity. Proctor does not teach that the inner
and outer walls are sealed by brazing. We find, however, that there are a
limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art
for joining two metals, e.g., stainless steel. In this regard, we note that Park
teaches that metal components of the cooking container disclosed therein are
joined, inter alia, by brazing (Park, col. 5, ll. 10-13). Therefore, we find that
it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to braze the stainless steel inner and outer walls of Proctor’s cooking
container together to form a cavity. “When there is a design need or market
pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary
skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was
obvious to try might show that is was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant’s claim 6 would have been prima facie
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made in view of the combination of Proctor and Park.
Claim 7 depends from and further limits the cooking container of
claim 1 to include a lid that covers the shell top opening. Claim 8 depends
from and further limits claim 7, requiring that the shell, second heat-
conductive plate and lid are all composed of the same material. Claim 9
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013