Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
Therefore, we affirm the rejection over Czala in view of
van Berkel of claims 22, 25 and 29.
Claim 23
The appellant argues that Czala and van Berkel do not
disclose a tray body that extends generally downwardly from a
support surface (brief, page 19). The tray bodies of Czala and
van Berkel are below the surface that supports the food and,
therefore, extend generally downwardly from the support surface.
Hence, we affirm the rejection of claims 23, 27 and 31 over
Czala in view of van Berkel.
Claim 24
The appellant argues that the handles of Czala and
van Berkel extend perpendicular to the direction of movement of
the product relative to the blade (brief, pages 19-20).
Claim 24 requires that the handle extends from the tray body at
least partially along a direction of reciprocal movement of the
tray. Van Berkel’s handle (figures 1 and 3) extends from the
tray body at least partially along a direction of reciprocal
movement of the tray.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in
the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 over Czala in view of
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007