Appeal No. 2004-1508 Application No. 09/443,559 Page 4 structure that is continuous and surrounds the filling.” In this regard, the examiner has not shown where in Heim there is any teaching that the hole formed in the cake would nonetheless result in a flowable filling that is sealed in a surrounding continuous structure as called for in appellant’s claims. We note that the examiner’s references to appellant’s drawing figure 7 is not persuasive of any disclosure in Heim that suggests the claimed product. Moreover, to the extent that the examiner is arguing that the claim 1 language should be interpreted as being broad enough to permit “probe filling” holes therein as employed by Heim, we disagree. While the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, we do not subscribe to the examiner’s viewpoint that the claim terms should be construed as permitting open fill holes as in Heim for the reasons outlined above and in appellant’s brief. Consequently, we reverse the stated § 103(a) rejection over Heim on this record. Rejection over James At the outset, we observe that appellant (brief, page 9) states that the appealed claims stand or fall together. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim on which we decide this appeal as to this rejection. SeePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007