Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
orientation of the Reynolds stove is important to control the flow of greases and
fats therein, as discussed in column 4, lines 25-58 of Reynolds ‘870.”1 See, Brief
page 6. Thus, appellant concludes, on page 8 of the brief:
[T]he Reynolds ‘853 disclosure clearly and unequivocally teaches away
from applicant’s claimed invention of a gas grilling apparatus having an
adjustable auxiliary burner unit.
A person skilled in the art of outdoor gas grilling apparatus, would
not consider the claimed gas grilling apparatus with a height-adjustable
auxiliary burner unit to be an obvious variation of the teaching of Reynolds
‘853 reference.
Further, appellant argues on pages 11 and 12 of the brief, referring to Reynolds’
adjustable height burner “[t]his disclosed mechanism of Reynolds ‘853 is
significantly different compared to that of the claimed invention, wherein the
vertical linear movement of the auxiliary burner is achieved with a mechanism
having a vertical guide structure on which the auxiliary burner is mounted.”
In response the examiner asserts appellant’s arguments regarding
cooking in a pot are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. See answer
page 8. Further, on page 7 of the answer, regarding the use of wheels, the
examiner states:
Appellant’s claimed grilling apparatus does [not] define [a] structural
limitation or arrangement that would necessarily preclude or conflict with
the use of leveling legs used of US4282853 (REYNOLDS). Nor does the
fact that US4282853 (REYNOLDS) has leveling legs preclude or conflict
1 We note that Reynolds 4,144,870 (‘870) is relied upon by appellant to support their arguments.
However, Reynolds ‘870 is not cited in the rejection, but is related to Reynolds 4,282,853, which is
cited in the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007