Appeal No. 2006-2074
Application No. 10/158,197
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs, the evidence of secondary considerations
proffered by appellants, along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal,
the examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and the examiner,
for the reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of
claims 36 through 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner rejects independent claims 36 and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 being unpatentable over Sanelli in view of Howell, Arnold and Bond
and also under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being unpatentable over just Sanelli in view
of Howell, asserting that the differences between Sanelli and Howell reside
in the non-functional descriptive material printed on the handle of the
knives. Appellants argue, on page 7 of the brief, that the labels on the
knives in Sanelli are to group the knives based upon the food for which they
will be used and that the labels do not use alphanumeric information to
identify the specific blade of the knife. Appellants assert, on page 9 of the
brief, that Sanelli and Howell do not teach alphanumeric information on the
butt of the knife handles such that they are visible when the knives are in the
block and that Bond and Arnold do not make up for this deficiency as they
are non-analogous art. Further on page 10 of the brief, appellants argue that
even if they were analogous art the examiner has not provided proper
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007