Appeal No. 2006-1588
Application No. 10/707,526
The examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to employ resilient members as taught by Shadduck on the
device of Leo in order to center the food products within a
casing having a cross section size larger than a cross section
size of the food products so as to produce substantially uniform
sized pieces” (answer, page 4).1
Leo discloses slicing and dicing jelly-like materials that
have been poured into the receptacle and allowed to set into a
semi-solid jelly mass (page 2, left column, lines 1-3).
Centering those materials in the receptacle is irrelevant because
they fill the receptacle.
Leo discloses that in addition to molding materials in the
receptacle, materials to be sliced and diced can be inserted into
the receptacle, provided that the materials are moldable (page 1,
left column, lines 5-13). Leo, however, indicates that the
molded materials inserted into the receptacle have the same shape
as the receptacle (page 2, right column, lines 46-55). Thus,
even if the materials are inserted into the receptacle rather
than being molded therein, the materials are centered in the
1 The appellants argue that Leo’s apparatus would produce substantially uniform sized
pieces of the jelly-like material regardless of where the material is within the
tubular receptacle (20), on the screen (51) during extrusion, or on the plate (37)
during slicing by the knife (42) (brief, pages 21-22; reply brief, pages 6-7). As
pointed out by the appellants (reply brief, page 7), the examiner has not explained
why the appellants’ argument is incorrect.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007