Appeal No. 98-2111
Application 08/596,564
thereof as a whole is considered, it would appear that the
recess (34) and the channel (50) therein are in fact slightly
wider than the external diameter of the top end (32) of the
glass (24). Note particularly, the showing in Figure 2 that
the side walls (52, 54) of the channel (50) merge tangentially
into the apparently cylindrical surface of the recess (34) and
that column 5, lines 9-12, of Patterson ‘737 requires the
walls (52, 54) to be parallel to one another and spaced apart
so as to define a channel that is “slightly wider” than the
external diameter of the top end (32) of the glass (24).
With regard to the requirement in the claims on appeal
that the inner cylindrical surface of the hub extend
“vertically above said food holding section” when said section
is in a specified food holding orientation, we can not support
the examiner’s position that this relationship is shown in
Figure 4 of Patterson ‘737. While it is clear that the top of
the central boss (78) seen in Figure 4 extends above the
adjacent portions of the food holding section, we are not of
the view that Figure 4 of Patterson ‘737 conclusively shows,
or would have been suggestive of, having the apparently
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007