Appeal No. 2002-0995 Page 3
Application No. 09/243,882
(Paper Nos. 3, 17 and 20)1 for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 19) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons set
forth below, we cannot sustain either of the examiner’s rejections.
As for the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-6 as being anticipated by Langville, we
note that independent claim 1 calls for a plurality of cutting blades “converging at the
center [of said pizza receiving aperture].” The cutting blades 12 of Langville’s coring
device, on the other hand, while converging toward the center of the aperture formed
within the ring 16 thereof, do not converge at the center of the aperture. Rather, each
pair of adjacent blades 12 is connected by a yoke section 13 and joined to a center
ferrule 10, at a significant distance from the center, so as to form a coring ring which
cuts out the core of a fruit.
1 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 expressly provides that
incorporation by reference in an examiner’s answer may be made only to a single other action. The
answer in this case, however, refers to the Office actions of Paper Nos. 12 and 17 and, thus, is not in
compliance with the MPEP. Furthermore, the Office action of Paper No. 17 refers to Paper No. 12, which
refers to the Office action of Paper No. 5, which refers to the Office action of Paper No. 3. Such a chain of
incorporation by reference in an examiner’s answer is clearly inappropriate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007