Appeal No. 2004-0331
Application No. 09/432,313
skilled artisan to configure the pan such that its front surface
extends forward relative to the bottom of the pan, which would
result in the midpoint of the bottom of the pan being offset
rearwardly relative to the midpoint of the length dimension of the
opening of the pan.
Appellant’s arguments on pages 12-14 of the Brief have been
considered but are not persuasive of error on the part of the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims as being unpatentable
over AAPA, Rose and Haskins. We simply to not agree with the
argument of appellant that AAPA in combination with Rose and
Haskins fail to teach a pan having a bottom portion being displaced
rearwardly with respect to the midpoint of the length dimension of
the pan opening. From our perspective, this spatial relationship
of the pan bottom relative to the pan opening is clearly taught in
Rose in Figures 4 and 6. More particularly, Figure 4 clearly shows
the midpoint of the bottom of the pan as being offset or displaced
rearwardly relative to the midpoint of the length dimension of the
opening at the top of the pan.
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the standing
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-4, 12-14 and 18 as
being unpatentable over the collective teachings of AAPA, Rose and
Haskins.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007