Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
the broadest reasonable interpretation of “unitary” consistent
with the appellant’s specification does not exclude those
attachments.
The appellant argues that van Berkel’s handle could not be
used on Czala’s slicer because Czala’s slicer lacks any flanges
to which van Berkel’s horizontally extending handle could be
coupled (brief, page 13). Van Berkel’s handle, which is
attached to the side of table 11, could be attached in the same
manner to the side of hopper 4 to which Czala’s handle is
attached.
The appellant argues that Walker’s handle does not extend
from at least two locations (brief, page 13). A handle
extending from at least two locations is disclosed by van Berkel
(figure 3, element 29).
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Czala in view
of van Berkel and Walker. Hence, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19 and 21 over those references.
Claims 4 and 16
The examiner argues that Czala discloses a recessed area
between the inside bend of the handle and the leg portion near
item 14 in figure 1 (answer, pages 7 and 25). Claims 4 and 16
require that the tray body includes a recessed area. The
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007