Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
We therefore affirm the rejections of claims 4 and 16 over
Reussenzehn and over Reussenzehn in view of van Berkel.
Claims 10, 11 and 14
Claims 10, 11 and 14 require that the tray body and handle
are a single, cast piece of metal.
The examiner states that “single, cast” “has not been given
significant patentable weight, since the method of forming the
device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the
device itself” (answer, page 6).9 That limitation is not a
method step but, rather, is a structural requirement of the
slicer, i.e., the tray body and handle must have the structure
of a single, cast piece of metal.
The examiner argues that the applied references render
claims 10, 11 and 14 obvious (answer, page 25), but the examiner
does not provide a basis for that argument.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejections of
claims 10, 11 and 14 over Reussenzehn and over Reussenzehn in
view of van Berkel.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and requires that the tray
includes at least two generally curved surfaces, each surface
9 Regarding the “single, cast” limitation the examiner directs the appellant’s
attention to GB 438,208, page 4, lines 113-120 (answer, page 6, footnote 1).
We do not address this reference because it is not included in the statement
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007