Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant’s arguments set forth in the
brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through
11, 13, 15 through 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 14 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claim 1
On pages 6 through 9 of the brief, appellant asserts that Reynolds
teaches a front-opening cabinet used for commercially broiling meats and other
foods. As such appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, “it would not be
practical to cook in a separate pot over either of the burners of Reynolds.”
Appellant argues, “[t]he cooking apparatus of Reynolds is provided with leveling
means such as floor engaging screws (Reynolds’853, col. 2, lines 47-50). Proper
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007