Appeal No. 2003-0778 Page 11
Application No. 09/564,131
Appellant (brief, page 15) argues that claim 10 is not anticipated by Jones
because Jones’ band does not comprise a flange having a distal edge with a shape that
conforms to a shape of the bottom structural wall of the charcoal barbecue grill.
Inasmuch as claim 10 is directed only to the divider loop and does not recite a
barbecue grill, much less a barbecue grill having a particular shape of bottom structural
wall, the key 4 of Jones meets this limitation. Thus, we shall also sustain the rejection
of claim 10 as being anticipated by Jones.
Claim 11 merely calls for a flange projecting outwardly of the divider wall and
separating a beginning of a path of charcoal from an end of a path of charcoal around
the divider wall. Claim 11 does not require that the flange prevent passage of air or
flames between the recited beginning and end of the path. Thus, with respect to claim
11, we share the examiner’s view, as expressed on page 12 of the answer, that the
aperture 8 would not prevent the key 4 from performing the function recited in the claim.
It thus follows that we shall also sustain the rejection of claim 11 as being anticipated by
Jones.
Finally, with respect to the rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by Sainsbury,
we conclude that the openings 54 of Sainsbury fully respond to the openings recited in
claim 4 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the rejections of this
claim as being anticipated by Lamkin and by Jones. Thus, we shall also sustain the
rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by Sainsbury.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007