Ex Parte HAYES-JACOBSON - Page 4


          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.  See             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007