Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
We therefore affirm the rejections of claims 22, 25 and 29
over Reussenzehn and over Reussenzehn in view of van Berkel.
Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 1 and requires that the tray
body extends generally downwardly from the support surface, and
the handle is unitary with the tray body.
The appellant argues that Reussenzehn’s slicer does not
include any generally downwardly extending structure from which
the handle extends (brief, page 19). Reussenzehn’s tray body is
below the support surface that supports the food and, therefore,
extends generally downwardly from the support surface.
Thus, we affirm the rejections of claims 23, 27 and 31 over
Reussenzehn and over Reussenzehn in view of van Berkel.
Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 1 and requires that the tray
body extends generally downwardly from the support surface, and
the handle extends from the tray body at least partially along a
direction of reciprocal movement of the tray.
The appellant argues that the handles of Reussenzehn and
van Berkel extend perpendicular to the direction of movement of
the product relative to the blade and, therefore, do not extend
at least partially along a direction of reciprocal movement of
the tray. Claim 24 does not require that the handle extends
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007