Appeal No. 1998-2415 Page 5
Application No. 08/751,798
Having reviewed appellants' explanation of the groupings on pages 4 and 5 of the brief, it is
apparent to us that appellants intended to include claims 22 and 26 in Groups B and C, respectively,
and that the inclusion of these claims in Group A was an inadvertent error. Therefore, in deciding this
appeal, we have treated claim 22 as being included in appellants' Group B and claim 26 as being
included in appellants' Group C. Further, in accordance with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), we have selected claims 36, 38, 39, 84, 85, 86 and 87 as the representative claims from
appellants' Groups A-G, respectively, to decide the appeal of this rejection, with all remaining claims in
each respective group standing or falling with the representative claim.
Scheflow discloses a rotary slicer for "comestible products" (column 1, line 5) comprising a
product magazine (26) equipped with a product follower (118) for use in feeding comestible products
to a circular slicing blade (40), which, as seen in Figure 2, has a beveled cutting edge. Scheflow does
not disclose any further details of the comestible products to be sliced or of the blade or the angle of its
bevel.
McBrady discloses a blade devised for efficiently severing meat product in semi-frozen
condition. According to McBrady, "semi-frozen" is generally defined by the temperature range of 25-
29 F (column 1, lines 47-48). McBrady teaches that double beveled blades having a coarse bevel areo
relatively erratic in laying slices down at all temperatures, while single beveled blades having a relatively
fine bevel angle tend to fray and shred the severed surfaces of the meat (column 1, lines 59-64).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007