Appeal No. 2003-1754
Application No. 09/821,137 Page 14
suggest such a new operation.7 We disagree for the reasons
stated above and in the answer.
From the above discussion, it follows that we do not agree
with appellants parallel assertions concerning the argued
“compressing the bread completely around the outer periphery
independently of the cutting of the bread portions (compressing
the cut portions)” and the obtaining of a result of “separately
exposed” cut portions as being distinguishing features.8 Kaiser
describes or suggests sealing the bread slices via the use of the
inner crimping ring of the Tartmaster. See, e.g., the products
on the cover pages that depict sealed edges, the Tartmaster H2001
and H2003, and pages 11, 30 and 43 of Kaiser. Clearly, the
7 We note that appellants’ assertion of that two step
procedure as being developed after Smucker’s marketing of the
“Uncrustables” sandwich appears to be undercut by the discussion
of such a two step procedure set forth in the Pampered Chef
Recipe and Instruction Book (1996 copyright) pages submitted with
an earlier prior art statement (copy attached was obtained from
parent application No. 09/404,701). See the fourth item on the
third page of the List of Prior Art Cited by Applicant dated May
31, 2001.
8 We observe that claim 46 does not require that the
compressing step occur after the cutting step, only independently
thereof. Indeed, at page 6 of appellants’ specification, the
sleeve 42 is described as being simultaneously descended with the
cutting cylinder (40). See appellants’ drawing figures 1, 2 and
5. Consequently, the suggestion at page 7 of the reply brief that
appellants’ claims require compressing after cutting are not
persuasive.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007