Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
Rejection of claim 7.
On page 14 of the brief, appellant asserts that claim 7 requires “ the
combination, in a single grilling apparatus, of a cart comprising guide structure
having at least one rail, for guiding substantially linear movement of an auxiliary
burner thereon relative to the cart…” Appellant argues, on page 15 of the brief,
that though Reynolds teaches a movable bottom burner it does not have the
claimed guide structure, but rather a complicated structure for positioning the
burner.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments. Claim 7 includes the
limitations “an auxiliary burner unit which is adjustably attached to the cart, said
auxiliary burner unit including an auxiliary burner, and being movable to a
position below the main grill burner; wherein normal movement of said auxiliary
burner unit, relative to said cart, is restricted by said guide structure to
substantially linear movement.” As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we
find that Reynolds teaches a movable auxiliary burner unit, item B2 and as
discussed with respect to claims 1, 4 and 5 we find that the movement of the
burner is limited by guide structure to linear movement. Appellant has identified
no feature of the claimed guide structure that differentiates it from the Reynolds’
guide structure. Accordingly, we find ample evidence to support the examiner’s
rejection of claim 7.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007