Ex parte BALLESTEROS - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 1999-0674                                                                                    
                 Application No. 08/654,536                                                                              

                 inject foodstuff into the channel in the bagel product.  The filling spout used with the dispenser      
                 unit is also a prior art article, namely an Edhard spout Model F-3090.                                  
                            A copy of the appealed claims is appended to appellant’s brief.  The copy of claims          
                 1 and 23 in the appellant’s appendix do not contain the errors asserted by the examiner on              
                 pages 2-3 of the answer.2                                                                               
                        In rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies upon a               
                 1994 brochure published by the Rheon Company and entitled “Salad Injector,” Catalog No. S-              
                 FOID-017- 6D (Rheon brochure).3  The examiner also relies on undated publications identified            
                 on page 3 of the answer as the “Edhard Pamphlets.”  The Edhard pamphlets are understood to              
                 be the two Edhard publications made of record in appellant’s information disclosure statement           
                 filed May 29, 1996 (Paper No. 2).  In the accompanying form PTO-1449, the first Edhard                  
                 pamphlet is identified as “Volumetric metering systems for food, etc.,” and the second Edhard           
                 pamphlet is identified as “Describing Part Numbers, Names, etc.”  The Rheon brochure was                
                 made of record by appellant in a                                                                        


                 subsequent information disclosure statement filed August 8, 1996 (Paper No. 4).  Both of the            
                 Edhard pamphlets and the Rheon brochure are treated as prior art by appellant.                          
                        Claims 1 through 8, 17, 18, 23, 24 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as             
                                                                                                                         
                 2 As noted in appellant’s reply brief, the phrase “that faces the portion of the channel” after the word
                 “spout” in line 14 of claim 1 was deleted in the amendment filed June 11, 1997 (Paper No. 7), and the phrase
                 “pushed in” in line 7 of claim 23 was changed to “pushed aside” in the amendment filed October 14, 1997 
                 (Paper No. 9).  Contrary to the examiner’s statement on page 3 of the answer, no change was made to claim
                 23 in the amendment filed November 13, 1997 (Paper No. 11).                                             
                 3 Contrary to the implication arising from the examiner’s identification on page 3 of the answer, this brochure
                 is not a publication in the Japanese language, but instead was merely printed in Japan.                 
                                                            2                                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007