Appeal No. 2000-1052
Application No. 09/060,012
cuts of meat, and the ability to inject different
quantities of liquid into the meat product.
The appellant, on the other hand, argues that neither
Townsend nor Rejsa teaches or suggests the "coordinating" step
recited in appealed claim 22. (Appeal brief, page 11.)
We must agree with the appellant. The examiner does not
point to any portion of either Townsend or Rejsa establishing
that the applied prior art expressly teaches, or would have
suggested to one ordinary skill in the art, the "coordinating"
step recited in appealed claim 22. Because the proposed
combination of references does not satisfy all of the claim
limitations, the examiner's rejection fails.
The two Sholl patents, which are not listed in the
statement of the rejection,1 are said to "illustrate that...the
nozzle contacts and penetrates the meat product at the time the
fluid is injected into the meat product." (Answer, page 7.) In
addition to our determination that these references do not
remedy the fundamental deficiency in the examiner's combination
of Townsend and Rejsa, we also note that the examiner has
misinterpreted the teachings of these references. Contrary to
1 In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n.3 (CCPA 1970)("Where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a 'minor capacity,' there would
appear to be no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of rejection.").
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007