Ex parte GUNDLACH et al. - Page 3




               Appeal No. 1998-2415                                                                         Page 3                
               Application No. 08/751,798                                                                                         


                                                        BACKGROUND                                                                

                      The appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for slicing food sticks, a slicing blade for slicing      

               food sticks and a method for slicing a stream of food sticks.  The key feature of the invention is the             

               blade, which comprises a top flat surface disposed substantially parallel to the food stick cut surface            

               and a bottom primary bevel surface which, together with the top flat surface, defines a "primary angle."           

               It is important to appellants that the "primary angle" be especially steep (specification, page 7).  A copy        

               of the claims on appeal appears in the appendix to appellants' brief.                                              

                      The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims             

               are:                                                                                                               

               McBrady et al. (McBrady)                      3,299,925                     Jan. 24, 1967                          
               Scheflow et al. (Scheflow)                    4,685,364                     Aug. 11, 1987                          

                      The following rejection is before us for review.                                                            

                      Claims  1,3-23, 25-31, 33-36, 38-58, 60-67, 70-75, 77-87 and 89-91 stand rejected under                     

               35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scheflow in view of McBrady.                                            

                      Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 20) and reply brief (Paper No. 22) and the answer                 

               (Paper No. 21) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of            

               this rejection.                                                                                                    












Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007