Appeal No. 2003-2075 Page 3
Application No. 09/908,073
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 10 and 18 recites a method for
forming a meat cut from a carcass of a fowl comprising the step of removing and/or
separating the scapula bone and muscles adhering to the scapula bone from the
carcass of the fowl. The examiner has rejected claims 1, 10 and 18, as well as claims
2-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-23, 27 and 28 depending therefrom, as being anticipated by
Denton. Our understanding of Denton’s deboning method is consistent with appellant’s
explanation on page 6 of the brief. Specifically, Denton discloses a method wherein the
shoulder blade (scapula) is removed from the breast of the chicken while leaving the
muscles associated with the shoulder blade with the breast muscle. We reach this
conclusion based on our reading of the descriptions associated with photos 26-29.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is apparent that Denton does not disclose a
method for forming a meat cut comprising the step of removing or separating the
scapula bone and muscles adhering to the scapula bone from the carcass of the fowl
and therefore does not anticipate the subject matter of independent claims 1, 10 and 18
or the claims depending therefrom. Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, 27 and 28 as being anticipated by Denton.
Sheehy, relied upon by the examiner for a teaching of bonding meat cuts
together, does nothing to cure the above-noted deficiency of Denton. It follows that we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007