Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
perpendicular to the direction of movement of the product
relative to the blade but, rather, requires that the handle
extends from the tray body at least partially along a direction
of reciprocal movement of the tray. The handles of Reussenzehn
(figures 1, 3 and 4) and van Berkel (figures 1 and 3) both
extend from the tray body at least partially along a direction
of reciprocal movement of the tray.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claims 24, 28
and 32 over Reussenzehn and over Reussenzehn in view of
van Berkel.
Rejections over Czala in view of
van Berkel and Walker
Claim 1
Czala discloses a slicer having a handle (to the left of
numeral 14 and its arrow in figure 1) that is fastened to a tray
in an undisclosed manner.
Walker discloses a vegetable cutter having a curved handle
attached thereto at only one end (figures 1-3).
The appellant argues that Czala does not disclose that the
handle is unitary with the tray, and that “the handle could
easily be coupled to the tray by various internal or non-visible
means, such as adhesives, small welds, internal fasteners, snap
attachments, interengaging geometries, etc.” (brief, page 12).
As discussed above regarding the rejections over Reussenzehn,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007