Appeal No. 2006-2074
Application No. 10/158,197
The appellants argue that two of Sanelli’s knives that are identical, such as
two 8” chef knives, can be in two different groups (reply brief, page 2).
Sanelli’s disclosure that the knives having each symbol are used for a
different typology of foodstuff (col. 8, lines 22-25) would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, different symbols for different
types of knives; for example, a loaf of bread symbol or a “B” symbol for a
bread knife, and a cow head symbol or an “M” symbol for a meat knife.
The appellants argue that Sanelli’s symbol is intended to identify a
general category of foodstuff such as “vegetables” for which a set of knives
is to be used, rather than a specific type of blade adapted for use with a type
of food (reply brief, page 3). At least some of Sanelli’s different typologies
of foods would require different types of lengths and blades. For example, a
bread knife or a vegetable knife would have a different blade type and length
than a meat knife. Consequently, Sanelli would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, first and second knives having different
markings that indicate the type and/or length of each knife’s blade.
The appellants argue, regarding dependent claim 41 and 45, that
Sanelli discloses an insert rather than a cap (brief, pages 15-16). The
appellants’ claims do not require that the cap covers the whole butt end of
the knife. Therefore, Sanelli’s insert reasonably can be considered a cap
within the meaning of the appellants’ claims.
With respect to dependent claims 49 and 63, the appellants argue that
Sanelli does not suggest a marking that indicates the length of the blade
(brief, page 16). The appellants’ claims do not require that the marking
states the length of the blade, only that it indicates the length of the blade.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007