Appeal 2007-2893
Application 10/818,885
Claim 12 depends from and further limits claim 1, requiring that the
shell be a volume substantially 12 times the volume of the sealed cavity.
Claim 13 depends from and further limits the shell of claim 12 to consist of a
pot of twelve quart volume. As discussed above, Proctor teaches that any
size container usable in the food serving filed in general (id.). In addition,
Proctor teaches that “[t]he quantity of heat transferred by the double-walled
container is a direct function of the surface area, particularly the surface area
in direct contact with the contents of the coffee pot” (Proctor, col. 3, ll. 64-
67). Stated differently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the quantity of heat transferred by the double-walled
container taught by the combination of Proctor and Park is a direct function
of the surface area in direct contact with the contents of the container.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
to transfer more or less heat to the contents in a container, you would use a
double-walled container with more or less available surface area.
Accordingly, double-walled container with a shell volume that is
substantially 12 times the volume of the sealed cavity; or is of a twelve quart
volume would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made, based on a determination of the
amount of surface area required for the particular liquid or solid being
prepared.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013