Appeal No. 2002-1850
Application 08/288,574
to set forth the subject matter which appellant regards as the
invention.
The examiner views a statement made by appellant (Paper No.
37) that the pressure of shaping meat must not exceed a maximum
of 200 g/cm2 of meat surface or 1.96N/cm2 as indicating that the
claimed invention is broader in scope than what is disclosed by
the disclosure (answer, pages 3, 6, and 7). We disagree. While
appellant has addressed a specific pressure limit during
prosecution, the originally filed application itself does not
disclose any particular pressure, critical or otherwise, for
shaping meat. Thus, it does not appear to us that appellant has
failed to set forth in the claims on appeal the subject matter
regarded as the invention. It is for this reason that the § 112,
second paragraph, rejection cannot be sustained.
The §102(b) rejection
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Korlatzki. It follows that we likewise
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12,
15 through 24, 28, and 29 since these claims stand or fall with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007