Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
limitations of claim 7. Further, we find that the limitations of claim 10 are similar
to those of claim 5 which we also find are taught by Reynolds. Accordingly, we
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 for the reasons stated supra with
respect to claims 7 and 5.
Rejection of claims 12 and 14.
Appellant argues, on pages 16 and 17 of the brief, that the examiner’s
taking of Official Notice regarding the use of portable cooking appliance with a
worktop adjacent the grill housing does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The examiner replies on pages 10 and 11 of the answer, that the prior
office action establishes the level of ordinary skill in the art and clearly states that
a person would be motivated to modify Reynolds to include a worktop for
providing a convenient food preparation and staging area adjacent the cooking
area.
Claim 12 contains the limitation, “a worktop attached to the cart adjacent
to the grill housing.” Claim 14 contains a similar limitation. The examiner does
not present objective evidence and facts as to support the finding that one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to attach a work surface to the cart
adjacent the grill housing of Reynolds. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007