Appeal No. 2005-1539 7
Application No. 09/799,275
pages 4-5 of the answer. Appellants’ contention (brief, page 11) that the configuration
of Latour’s grill insert structure (22) is different from that required in claims 18 and 19 on
appeal is not well taken. In the first place, appellants have not pointed to any specific
structural difference they believe would distinguish the grilling surface of claims 18 and
19 on appeal from that of Latour. Moreover, appellants have merely asserted that their
invention functions differently from that of Latour, without providing any cogent reasons
as to why the grill insert of Latour is different from that defined in claims 18 and 19 on
appeal and/or would not be capable of functioning in the manner broadly set forth in
those claims. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) based on Latour.
In rejecting claims 14, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Barker in
view of Stanek, the examiner points to the lower collecting grill element (2) of Stanek’s
cooking grill member and contends (answer, page 7) that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to modify the plate (12)
of Barker to be used in combination with the grease diverter (2) of Stanek for the
desirable purpose of preventing all grease drippings from falling onto the burner unit of
a grill. Regarding the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Latour in
view of Stanek, the examiner has made a similar assertion that it would have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007