Appeal No. 2003-0881 Page 4
Application No. 09/658,561
tow hook, a tow hook member or a tow hook means. In our view, a tow hook has an
art-recognized meaning which is distinct from the structure taught by Peterson.
Since the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 24 to 26 are not disclosed
in Peterson for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 and 24 to 26, and claims 2, 3, 5 to 15 and 17 to 21 dependent thereon, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The decision of the examiner to reject dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed for the reason set forth above with respect to parent claim 1. Moreover, the
examiner has not set forth any evidence in the obviousness rejection before us in this
appeal establishing that the claimed "bread slice configuration" would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In
that regard, we note that the claimed "bread slice configuration" prevents rotation while
a circular configuration such as taught by Peterson does not prevent rotation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007