Appeal No. 2003-0778 Page 10
Application No. 09/564,131
a barbecue grill and charcoal briquets. For the same reasons set forth supra in our
discussion of the rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by Lamkin, we find
appellant’s argument that claim 4 defines over Jones to be unpersuasive. We therefore
shall also sustain the rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by Jones.
With respect to claim 8, appellant argues on page 14 of the brief that the
examiner has not identified the structure in Jones that responds to the holding tab
recited in claim 8 and points out that the key 4 of Jones is a separate element.
Consequently, according to appellant, the key 4 is not a part of the band and one skilled
in the art would not interpret Jones as comprising one end of a divider wall having a
holding tab, as recited in claim 8 (see brief, page 14). We disagree.
As noted by the examiner on page 12 of the answer, claim 8 does not require
that the holding tab be integral (or unitary) with the divider wall. We find reasonable the
examiner’s position that the key 4 is a “holding tab” as broadly recited in claim 8 and
that the end of Jones’ band through which the key 4 passes “has” said holding tab.
Thus, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as being anticipated by
Jones.
We shall also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as being anticipated by
Jones. With the key 4 disposed in a slot 3 of one end of Jones’ band 1, the key forms a
“protruding rim, edge, rib or collar used to strengthen an object, hold the object in place,
or attach the object to another object” and thus meets the definition of “flange” offered
by appellant on page 15 of the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007