Ex Parte Knapp

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2012

11842362 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________
Ex parte JIMMIE LEE KNAPP
____________________

Appeal 2010-006122
Application 11/842,362
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006122
Application 11/842,362

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jimmie Lee Knapp (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A bowl assembly for holding popcorn comprising:
a bowl having an open top, a bottom, and a sidewall
extending therebetween;
a plurality of openings disposed through the bottom of
the bowl that are of size and shape greater than a popcorn
kernel and less than popcorn;
a compartment detachably secured to the bottom of the
bowl;
wherein popcorn kernels disposed through he [sic: the]
plurality of openings are contained within the compartment.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Narberes
Fahy
US 4,942,277
US 6,135,307
Jul. 17, 1990
Oct. 24, 2000
Rejections
Appellant requests our review of the Examiner’s rejections of:
(1) claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Narberes and
(2) claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fahy and Narberes.
Appeal 2010-006122
Application 11/842,362

3
OPINION
Anticipation by Narberes
The only argument raised by Appellant in contesting the rejection of
claim 1 as anticipated by Narberes is that Narberes lacks a “compartment”
detachably secured to the bottom of the bowl. App. Br. 4. Specifically,
Appellant contends that Narberes’ snap-on compartment cover 20, on which
the Examiner reads the claimed “compartment” (Ans. 4) is a cover, not the
compartment 16. App. Br. 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Narberes’ snap-on
compartment cover 20 is a compartment detachably secured to the bottom of
the bowl, as called for in claim 1. See Ans. 5 (pointing out that Narberes’
snap-on compartment cover 20 comprises a bottom surface and sidewalls,
and thus can function as a detachable compartment, and noting the similar
structure disclosed in Appellant’s figure 1).
Appellant argues that Narberes’ use of the terminology “kernel
receiver compartment 16” in describing the cylindrical flange extending
downwardly from the bowl 10 and of the terminology “snap-on
compartment cover 20” in describing the structure with a bottom surface and
upwardly extending cylindrical side wall that is detachably secured to the
downwardly extending cylindrical flange “cuts-against the Examiner’s
identification of Narberes’ cover 20 as a compartment.” Reply Br. 2;
Narberes, col. 3, ll. 23-24, 28. We do not agree. The fact that Appellant
chose to identify similar structure as an annular “flange 26” extending from
the bottom of the bowl and a “compartment 30” detachably secured to the
bowl (Spec. 2, ll. 27-31; fig. 1), rather than as a “compartment” and a
“cover,” does not negate anticipation. Anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis
Appeal 2010-006122
Application 11/842,362

4
verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo
N.V. v. U. S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir.
1986)). “An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word
what is in the claims.” Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d
1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of dependent claims 2 and 5,
for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments and which thus
fall with claim 1, as anticipated by Narberes.
Obviousness based on Fahy and Narberes
In contesting the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Fahy and
Narberes, Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s proposed combination
of Fahy and Narberes. See Ans. 4-5. Rather, the only argument advanced
by Appellant is that Fahy discloses a bowl with an open bottom, rather than
a bowl having a bottom with a plurality of openings disposed through the
bottom, and a compartment detachably secured to the bottom, as called for
in claim 1. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3.
Claim 1 does not require that the bottom of the bowl be formed as one
piece with the sidewall. The Examiner correctly found that Fahy’s
separation disk 25 (which has apertures 29 formed therein), when threadedly
secured to the threaded inner perimeter 18, forms the bottom of the bowl.
Ans. 4, 6; Fahy, figs. 3, 4; col. 4, ll. 33-40; col. 5, ll. 25-31. Further, Fahy’s
collection base 20, on which the Examiner correctly read the claimed
“compartment,” is detachably secured, by threading, to the separation disk
25 (i.e., to the bottom of the bowl). Ans. 4; Fahy, col. 5, ll. 20-25; figs. 3, 4.
Appeal 2010-006122
Application 11/842,362

5
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of dependent claims 2, 4, and
5, for which Appellant does not present any separate arguments and which
thus fall with claim 1, as unpatentable over Fahy and Narberes.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls