Appeal No. 97-3752 Page 8
Application No. 08/293,322
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined
(answer, pp. 3-4) that (1) processing of fish fillets is old
and well known in the butchering art and consequently, the use
of Townsend's apparatus to process fish instead of ham would
have been obvious, and (2) the alignment of Townsend's blades
(20, 21) cause the "initial" cuts not to be concurrent,
nevertheless, the claimed time sequence is not precluded by
Townsend's apparatus.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-11) that (1)
processing fish fillets is characteristically different from
processing ham, (2) Townsend does not teach or suggest
separating the skin from the superficial layer (the fat of the
ham) at a time no later than concurrently with the separation
of the superficial layer from the ham, and (3) there is no
suggestion in the applied prior art to modify the position of
Townsend's fatting blade 21 with respect to the fatting blade
20 to provide the claimed relationship.
In our view, the examiner has not set forth a sufficient
factual basis to establish obviousness with respect to claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007