Appeal No. 2003-1775
Application No. 09/845,925 Page 4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaiser in view of
Shideler.
We refer to the briefs and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants* arguments
and the evidence in support thereof as set forth in the brief and
reply brief, appellants have not persuaded us of reversible error
on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, we will affirm the
examiner’s rejections for substantially the reasons set forth by
the examiner in the answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Rejection of Claim 39
Kaiser2 discloses, inter alia, a crustless sandwich formed
using a device comprising a Tartmaster or Krimpkut sealer to cut
and seal the bread. See, e.g., Kaiser, at pages 1, 2, 7 and the
devices, such as the devices labeled H2001, H2003 and H2009
2 Our consideration of Kaiser is limited to the excerpts
therefrom supplied by appellants, which we find furnish
sufficient evidence alone (claim 39) and in combination with
Shideler (claims 40 and 41) to make out a prima facie case of
obvious on the record before us. In the event of further
prosecution of this subject matter before the examiner,
appellants and the examiner may wish to consider whether the
entire work of Kaiser should be made of record for consideration
by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007