Ex Parte Ozawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 2, 2006

09519999 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 2, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHIGEO OZAWA
____________

Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999
Technology Center, 1700
____________

Decided: November 2, 2006
____________

Before KIMLIN, KRATZ, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.

JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This appeal involves claims 10-11, 13-18, 20-25, 27, and 29-33, the
only claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the

Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.1
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention relates to an accommodation bag in which at
least one liquid can be heated either by external sources or by an internal
heating element. The claimed accommodation bag further comprises a
second inner bag containing therein a substance that is to be mixed with the
heated liquid. Representative claim 20, as presented in the Brief, appears
below:
20. A container, comprising:
an outer bag;
a first inner bag accommodated in said outer bag and filled with a
liquid, said first inner bag being made liquid-impermeable except at least for
a first vapor-releasing hole that is positioned in an upper part thereof and
closed by a first seal configured to open when a pressure inside said first
inner bag reaches a predetermined level by heating said liquid, thereby
allowing said heated liquid to escape said first inner bag as vapor; and
a second closed inner bag accommodated in said outer bag and
containing therein a substance to be mixed with said vapor, said second
inner bag being made liquid permeable at least partially for allowing said
liquid, after escaping said first inner bag as vapor, to enter said second inner
bag and to heat and be mixed with said substance.
As evidence of unpatentability the Examiner relies upon the following
references:

1 In rendering this decision, we have considered the Appellant’s arguments
presented in the Briefs filed October 18, 2004 and December 20, 2004 and
the Examiner's position presented in the Answer mailed October 20, 2004.
2
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

Hoffman US 3,683,889 Aug. 15, 1972
Ooyama JP 03-136614 Jun. 11, 1991
Yoshio2 JP 06-329179 Nov. 29, 1994
Chung US 5,741,534 Apr. 21, 1998
Claims 31 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 20, 22-25, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
obvious over Ooyama.-
Claims 21 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious
over Ooyama in view of Hoffman.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman and Chung.
Claims 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over Ooyama and Hoffman.
Claims 16-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman and Yoshio.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman, and Chung.
We initially note that Appellant asserts that there are at least six
separately patentable groups of claims. Appellant submits that “each group
are [sic, is] separately patentable, and thus, do not stand or fall together.”
(Br. 3). Appellant has not provided separate arguments directed to the
individual claims within the separate groups. Appellant's grouping of the
claims appear to be based upon the stated prior art rejections. Consequently,

2 The Examiner in the Answer reported the wrong date for this reference.
3
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

for each ground of rejection the rejected claims will stand or fall together.
We will select a representative claim for each stated rejection.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §112.
Claims 31 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner asserts that the Specification does not disclose
"submergence" of a second inner bag in vapor as specified in claims 31 and
33 (Final Rejection 3). Appellant argues:
The plain meaning of the last paragraph of claim 31 is that said
internal heating element is configured to generate sufficient heat
to cause said liquid to (i) escape said first inner bag as vapor, and
(ii) escape said first inner bag in an amount sufficient for
submergence of said portion of said second inner bag and the
substance contained in said portion of the second inner bag. The
former finds solid support in the original specification, e.g., page
4, line 20. The latter finds solid support in the original drawings,
e.g., FIGs. 2 and 3. A person of ordinary skill in the art, after
looking at FIGs. 2-3 and reading the relevant part of the
specification, would at once recognize that the second inner bag
is submerged in the heated liquid which has escaped the first
inner bag as vapor. The invention of claim 31, as correctly
construed above, is clearly supported by the specification as
filed. (Br. 7).

An ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the written
description requirement of §112. Instead, the disclosure needs only to
reasonably convey to persons skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the subject matter in question. See In re Edwards, 568 F.2d
1349, 1351-52, 196 U.S.P.Q. 465, 467 (CCPA 1978). The Specification on
page 4 as originally filed clearly discloses that the liquid in the first
accommodation bag flows outward when heated. The Specification also
4
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

discloses that the liquid may escape in the form of vapor. It is our opinion
that this disclosure conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
Appellant had possession of the invention as presently claimed.
Consequently, the Examiner's rejection is reversed.
We now turn to the prior art rejections.
Rejections Under §103 (a).
Upon careful consideration of the positions presented by the Examiner
and the Appellant, we agree with the Examiner's stated rejections. Our
reasons follow.
Claims 20, 22-25, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as
obvious over Ooyama. We select claim 20 as representative of the rejected
claims.
The Examiner asserts that Ooyama describes an outer container (bag)
that comprises a liquid accommodation bag that is liquid impermeable and a
second inner bag that is liquid permeable and comprises a substance to be
mixed with vapor (Final Rejection 3-4). The Examiner asserts that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to provide the liquid accommodation bag with a steam pressure
release valve for steaming products in the described second accommodation
bag. In this regard, Ooyama suggests a steaming option (p. 14).
Appellant argues that Ooyama does not disclose a steam pressure
releasing vent in the liquid accommodation bag and that Ooyama’s element
(31) is disclosed only to discharge liquid rather than steam (Br. 9). We do
not agree with this argument. We agree with the Examiner that Ooyama
suggests using a vent the vent for the liquid containing bag that is suitable
for releasing vapor (Page 14).
5
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to substitute the
partition separating means of Ooyama with a second inner bag, because the
partition is a simpler construction (Br. 10). Appellant's argument is not
persuasive. Ooyama discloses that the substance to be mixed with the liquid
from the first inner bag can be contained in a separate bag (13) or separated
by a partition (68).
Appellant argues that Ooyama does not include an enabling disclosure
for arranging the liquid accommodation bag, below the food components
(Br. 10). We do not agree. Ooyama discloses placing the liquid containing
accommodation bag beneath the food product. (See page 14).
Appellant argues that Ooyama fails to teach or suggest placing the
vapor-releasing hole in the upper part of the liquid accommodation bag, and
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vent should
be formed at the bottom of the liquid containing bag (Br. 11). Appellant's
argument is not persuasive. Ooyama suggests that the liquid
accommodation bag can be located within the outer bag/container to provide
steam for cooking the food. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
sufficient skill to choose the appropriate location for the vapor releasing vent
corresponding to the claimed upper bag location. Appellants have not
substantiated their arguments with respect to the alleged unobviousness of
the steam vent location with any persuasive evidence.
Claims 21 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as obvious
over Ooyama and Hoffman. We select claim 21 as a representative of the
rejected claims.
The Examiner asserts that Hoffman teaches that it was known to
provide a heating element in the liquid holding portion of a container for the
6
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

purpose of heating the liquid to hydrate a separate permeable compartment.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include an
internal heating element and the liquid accommodation bag of Ooyama
(Final Rejection 6). Appellant does not dispute that Hoffman teaches an
internal heating element for heating a liquid as suggested by the Examiner.
(See Brief, pages 13-14). Appellant's arguments regarding Ooyama's
steaming environment are not persuasive of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s proposed introduction of a heating element in the liquid
accommodation bag of Ooyama based on the combined teachings of the
applied references 3
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman, and Chung. The Examiner relies on the Chung reference
for teaching the use of additional food containing accommodation bags.
Appellant argues that Chung is not combinable with the steaming
embodiment of Ooyama because the additional bags are located above the
liquid containing bag and cannot be located around the first liquid
accommodation bag (Br. 14). Appellant’s purported distinction regarding
the location of the secondary bags is not persuasive. Ooyama discloses that
the food item to be cooked can be separated from the liquid containing bag
through the use of a partition or a separate bag. The inclusion of additional
secondary bags containing various items which need to be cooked would

3 It is noted that the vapor that is released from the liquid accommodation
bag will be trapped inside the outer bag (10). This vapor will build inside
the container until sufficient pressure is obtained to cause the steam-
pressure-releasing vent (21) to open. Thus, it appears that the vapor released
from the liquid containing accommodation bag would surround and
submerge at least a portion of the containers inside the outer bag.
7
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as suggested by
Chung. The location of the secondary bags "around" the liquid containing
bag called for in appealed claim 29 does not preclude the location of the
bags above the liquid containing bag. In other words, the secondary bags
that are located above the liquid containing bag of Ooyama would still be
considered to be "around" the liquid containing bag.
Claims 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over Ooyama and Hoffman. We select claim 10 as
representative of the rejected claims.
As indicated above in the discussion of claim 21, the Examiner asserts
that Hoffman teaches that it was known to provide a heating element in the
liquid holding portion of a container for the purpose of heating the liquid to
hydrate a separate permeable compartment. Appellant argues that the
Hoffman reference fails to disclose that the heating element is installed in
the liquid containing bag (Br. 15). Appellant recognizes that Hoffman
discloses that interior chamber 23 faces the liquid to be heated. However,
Appellant asserts that chamber 24 is directed to the outside of the container;
therefore the heating element is not part of the interior bag. This argument is
not persuasive because a portion of the heating element 23 disclosed by
Hoffman is attached to part of the liquid containing portion of the container
as described by the Examiner. Thus, we are in agreement with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to include an internal heating element in the
liquid containing portion of Ooyama.
Claims 16-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman and Yoshio. Appellant has not specifically challenged
the Examiner's motivation for combining the teachings of Yoshio with
8
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

Ooyama and Hoffman. Rather, Appellant asserts that the subject matter of
claims 16-17 is patentable for the reasons advanced with respect to claim 10.
The Examiner has presented factual determinations regarding the suitability
of adding the teachings of Yoshio with Ooyama and Hoffman. (See Final
Rejection 12-13). Thus, for the reasons presented above regarding claim 10
and the reasons presented by the Examiner, we will uphold the rejection of
claims 16-17.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman, and Chung. Appellant has not specifically challenged the
Examiner's motivation for combining the teachings of Chung with Ooyama
and Hoffman. Rather, Appellant asserts that the subject matter of claim 27
is patentable for the reasons advanced with respect to claims 10 and 29 (Br.
17). The Examiner has presented factual determinations regarding the
suitability of adding the teachings Chung with Ooyama and Hoffman. (See
Final Rejection 13-14). Thus, for the reasons presented above regarding
claims 10 and 29 and the reasons presented by the Examiner, we will uphold
the rejection of claim 27.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first
paragraph is reversed. The prior art rejections of claims 10-11, 13-18, 20-
25, 27, and 29-33 are affirmed.
9
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §1.136 (a)(1)(iv)(2004).

AFFIRMED

tf
LOWE, HAUPTMAN, GOPSTEIN,
GILMAN & BERNER LLP
1700 DIAGONAL ROAD
SUITE 310
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
10