Appeal No. 2003-2075 Page 2
Application No. 09/908,073
(specification, page 2). Appellant refers to the resulting meat cut as a “turkey rib” cut.
A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Sheehy et al. (Sheehy) 6,221,405 Apr. 24, 2001
(filed May 11, 1999)
Denton et al. (Denton), “Broiler Chicken Deboning,” Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, June 1988.
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Denton.
Claims 8, 16 and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Denton in view of Sheehy.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007