Appeal No. 2005-1539 4
Application No. 09/799,275
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation and obviousness issues raised in this
appeal in light of the record before us, we have made the determinations which follow.
In considering the rejection of claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Barker, we note that Barker discloses a flare reduction buffer member (2) to be
situated between a grill burner element (8) and a food cooking grill (6) of a gas
barbecue to provide even heating in the barbecue and reduce flare-up during cooking.
Buffer member (2) is in the form of a plate (12) formed, for example, of cast iron (col. 2,
lines 48-50) and includes a plurality of pockets (18) of truncated pyramid configuration
extending above the upper surface (14) of the plate (12). See, e.g., Figure 1 of Barker.
As noted in column 3, line 42, et seq., in operation, pockets (18) when in the orientation
seen in Figure 1, trap hot air and smoke rising off burner element (8) and allow heated
air to rise to the cooking grill (6) above to assist in the cooking process. It is further
noted that
[s]ufficient heat is retained in plate 12 to provide both radiant heat for
cooking and to vaporize most food drippings (juices, fats, falling on upper
surface 14 from grill 6), into smoke. Perforations 20 and 30 are sufficiently
small in size to block most food drippings from falling directly to burner 8
and hence to block the majority of the flare-ups within the barbecue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007