Appeal No. 2005-2752
Application No. 10/443,245
The examiner relies upon the following reference in the
rejection of the appealed claims:
Kasai et al. (Kasai) 5,092,814 Mar. 3, 1992
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus
and method for making sausage. The appealed claims are
particularly concerned with the hopper which loads casings onto
the stuffing tube of the machine.
Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, description requirement. Claims 2, 4-6 and 8-22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kasai.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants that the subject matter of
the appealed claims is not described by the applied reference
within the meaning of Section 102. We do, however, find no error
in the examiner’s Section 112 rejection.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection under Section
112, first paragraph. We agree with the examiner that the
original specification does not provide descriptive support for
the claim recitation “the fence wall and the chute wall move
equivalent distances away from the axis of the stuffing tube as a
larger casing is accommodated by the hopper” (claims 12 and 19).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007