Appeal No. 1998-2415 Page 8
Application No. 08/751,798
claims 3, 4, 22, 25, 26, 33, 38, 39, 57, 60, 61, 79 and 89 (appellants' Groups B and C), which contain
these limitations.
Turning next to claims 84, 85 and 86, as Scheflow discloses slicing of "comestible products"
using the rotary slicer disclosed therein and as McBrady teaches that its disclosed blade is devised for
efficiently severing meat product in semi-frozen condition, without any admonition that the blade would
not have been suitable for slicing meats having low fat content or high water content, it is our opinion
that the combined teachings of Scheflow and McBrady would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the use of a rotary slicer as taught by Scheflow comprising a blade having the characteristics
taught by McBrady to slice semi-frozen meats, including meats having fat content of about 10 percent
by weight or less and water content of at least about 70 percent as recited in claims 84, 85 and 86, with
a reasonable expectation of success. This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
so as to switch the burden to appellants to present evidence that it would not have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to slice such meats using a blade of the type taught by McBrady. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
975 (1989). While appellants' specification (page 2) suggests that foods having high moisture content
and/or low fat content may be difficult to slice without causing damage such as tearing, we, like the
examiner, note that appellants have not presented any evidence that the blade taught by McBrady does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007