Appeal No. 2005-1539 9
Application No. 09/799,275
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 14,
15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Barker and Stanek, or the rejection of
claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Latour and Stanek.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 8, 9, 16 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Latour in view of Barker. In this
instance, the examiner has determined that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to modify the conical shaped
hollow elements of Latour to be in the form of inverted pyramids like those seen in
Barker “as the pyramid shape is understood in the art to be the equivalent of an inverted
conical shape for collecting and diverting grease drippings from cooked food items”
(answer, pages 8-9). Finding no separate argument in appellants’ brief which
specifically addresses this rejection, we will summarily sustain it. Moreover, from the
Grouping of Claims set forth on page 8 of the brief, it appears that appellants intended
that the claims subject to this rejection would stand or fall together with the outcome
concerning our consideration of the individual rejections of independent claims 16 and
18 treated above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007