Ex Parte Ozawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2007

09519999 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not
binding precedent of the Board.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: July 31, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant’s request rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1) of
the Decision mailed November 2, 2006. That Decision sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-11, 13-18, 20-25, 27, and 29-33.
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519,999

37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1) (2006) provides as follows:

Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within
two months[from] the date of the original decision of the
Board. No request for rehearing from a decision on
rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision
so modified the original decision as to become, in effect,
a new decision, and the Board states that a second request
for rehearing would be permitted. The request for
rehearing must state with particularity the points believed
to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the
Board. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the
Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the
brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the
request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs
(a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section. When a request for
rehearing is made, the Board shall render a decision on
the request for rehearing. The decision on the request for
rehearing is deemed to incorporate the earlier opinion
reflecting its decision for appeal, except for those
portions specifically withdrawn on rehearing, and is final
for the purpose of judicial review, except when noted
otherwise in the decision on rehearing.

Appellant asserts that separate arguments of patentability for
claims 23, 24, 32 and 33 was provided in the Brief and Reply Brief
and should be considered by the Board (Request 1-2).
The principal argument provided for claims 23, 24 and 32 in the
Brief was the same as that which was presented for claim 20.1
Specifically, Appellant’s argument are directed to the arrangement of
the components of the within the accommodation bag. The discussion

1 Claim 20 was selected as representative of the rejected groups of
claims.
2
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519,999

provided on pages 5 to 6 of the Decision applies equally to the subject
matter of claims 23, 24 and 32. Furthermore, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have sufficient skill to choose the appropriate
location for the placement and attachment of the food containing bag
within the outer bag. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also
understand that a liquid releasing hole would be suitable for an
accommodation bag to release any remaining liquid after the cooking
process had been completed. Appellants have not substantiated their
arguments with respect to the alleged unobviousness of the elements
described in claims 23, 24, and 32 with any persuasive evidence.
Appellant in the Request for Rehearing did not contend there
were errors in the stated reasons in support of the decision.
Claims 21 and 33 are rejected together over the combined
teachings of Ooyama and Hoffman. For this ground of rejection
Appellant did not provide arguments for claim 21 separate from claim
33. The substantive arguments appearing on pages 13 and 14 of the
Brief regarding this basis of rejection were addressed in the Decision
on pages 6-7. Appellant in the Request for Rehearing did not contend
there were errors in the stated reasons in support of the decision.
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed our
decision, it is our determination that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the argued claims on
appeal.
3
Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519,999

CONCLUSION
We have granted Appellant’s Request to the extent that we have
reconsidered our decision of November 2, 2006. We have modified
our decision to include the discussion of claims 23, 24, and 32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv).
REHEARING GRANTED

tf/ls

LOWE, HAUPTMAN, GOPSTEIN,
GILMAN & BERNER LLP
1700 DIAGONAL ROAD
SUITE 310
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
4