Appeal No. 2003-0778 Page 8
Application No. 09/564,131
combination with a barbecue grill and charcoal briquets so as to retain the charcoal
briquets outside the loop to control burning. As pointed out by the examiner on page 9
of the answer, however, appellant’s claims are directed solely to the divider in the form
of a loop and not to the combination of the divider, barbecue grill and briquets. For the
reasons discussed above, we interpret claim 1 as merely requiring a divider in the form
of a loop which is capable of performing the function recited in claim 1. Accordingly,
we agree with the examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 is fully anticipated by the
loop structure disclosed in any of Lamkin, Jones and Sainsbury.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the rejections of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Lamkin, as being anticipated by Jones and as being anticipated by
Sainsbury. We shall also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7 and 13, which appellant
has grouped with claim 1, as being anticipated by Lamkin, the rejection of claims 2, 3
and 7, which appellant has grouped with claim 1, as being anticipated by Jones and the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 7 and 13, which appellant has grouped with claim 1, as being
anticipated by Sainsbury. See pages 6 and 7 of appellant’s brief.
With respect to the rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by Lamkin, appellant
concedes on page 12 of the brief that the band of Lamkin comprises a plurality of
openings2, but argues that Lamkin lacks any disclosure that these openings function to
control charcoal burning around the attachment. First, as pointed out by the examiner
2 Appellant refers to openings a1 (a slot a1 is provided in the alternative fastening arrangement
shown in Figure 3), but we also note that Lamkin’s band (Figure 1) is provided with a plurality of slots a1
and punch-outs to form lugs a3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007