Appeal 2006-2640
Application 10/364,657
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief and Reply Brief for a
complete exposition of the positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants.
OPINION
The principal issues in this appeal involve the first two steps specified
in appealed independent claim 1: (1) moving a rectangular prismatic loaf of
crusted bread longitudinally past cutting blades, that is, a plurality of such
blades, to remove the crust from any four sides; and (2) moving the
decrusted loaf transversely past a plurality of blades to slice the loaf. It is
apparent from the plain language thereof that claim 1 does not, as appellants
argue, require “simultaneously decrusting opposite sides of [sic] loaf”
(Reply Br. 1). This requirement is found in appealed independent claim 4
which specifies, among others things, that in the decrusting step, the crusted
loaf is moved “longitudinally between first and second blades to
simultaneously remove crust from opposite first and second sides of the loaf,
and moving the loaf past third and fourth blades to remove crust from third
and fourth sides.” Appealed claim 24, directly dependent on appealed
dependent claim 21 and indirectly dependent on claim 1, also contains this
limitation.
The Examiner relies on Duke and Mantelet with respect to the
decrusting and slicing steps, respectively, in each of the combinations of
references applied. With respect to the decrusting limitation in claim 4, the
Examiner states that
Duke discloses the decrusting step comprising moving
the loaf longitudinally into contact with knife member
to remove the crust from one side at a time (page 1, line
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007