Appeal No. 2006-2383
Application 09/025,896
That portion is not the top of the annular cutter but, rather, is part of top section 18 into
which the annular cutter is press fitted (col. 2, lines 67-68). The portion of Seib’s top
section 18 between the upper edges 38 of annular cutter 36, which the examiner relies upon
as corresponding to the appellant’s closed top, and the central cutter support 32 and its
surface 34, which the examiner relies upon as corresponding to the appellant’s handgrip
(answer, page 8), are not affixed but, rather, are portions of the same molded top section 18
(col. 2, lines 60-66; col. 3, lines 54-56; figure 2). It is not reasonable to consider the portion
of top section 18 above the upper edges and around the sides of annular cutter 36 to be
part of the handgrip, yet consider the portion of that same top section between the upper
edges of annular cutter 36 to be part of the annular cutter.
We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Seib.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Rothje in view of Snyder
The examiner argues that Rothje discloses handgrip 6 (answer, page 4). The
appellant’s claim requires a handgrip that covers a closed top and extends slightly over onto
a cylindrical wall. Rothje’s handgrip (6), which is affixed to a rotatable disk (5) inside a
grooved ring (2’) at the upper end of Rothje’s ice cream dispenser, does not extend over
onto the wall (figure 1).
The examiner relies upon Snyder for a disclosure of a cylindrical shaped cutter
having a protective cover (40) for protecting a user from a cutting edge (30) (answer, page
4). The cutting edge referred to by the examiner is the blade (30) of a cutter for cutting
circles in materials such as carpeting (col. 2, lines 22-25; col. 3, lines 1-3). A cylindrical
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007