Appeal 2006-2640
Application 10/364,657
64). Although, Duke does not disclose removing the
crust from opposite sides of the loaf at the same time, it
would be obvious to remove the crust from two sides at
a time rather than only one side in order to increase
efficiency.
Answer 4-5; see also 7. The Examiner finds that Mantelet at col. 1, l. 24,
would have disclosed “a method for slicing crustless bread,” and concludes
that it would have been “obvious to cut the loaf in order to provide slices of
crustless bread for use in making sandwiches” (Answer 4 and 7).
Appellants submit, with respect to claim 1, that the combination of
Duke and Mantelet would not have taught “moving the loaf longitudinally to
decrust it and transversely to slice it because” Mantelet “teaches moving the
tool against the loaf, not moving the loaf transversely as claimed” (Reply Br.
1; see also Br. 8). With respect to claims 4 and 24, Appellants contend that
the knife structure of Duke would not simultaneously remove crust from
opposite sides of the loaf, and the Examiner has not established the
motivation to modify the knife structure of the reference in this respect (Br.
9-10; see also Reply Br. 2).
We find that Duke would have disclosed a single knife blade 16
attached to a flat support such that “[t]he crusts from loaves of bread are cut
by moving the same longitudinally over the support and against the cutting
edge of the blade 16” (Duke page 1, ll. 31-51 and 64-69, and Figs. 1-3).
Mantelet would have disclosed a device to slice, among other things,
“crustless bread” in a “slicing device” having two sets of blades which are
“driven in opposite directions . . . so that by lowering the multiblade tool on
to an object to be sliced . . . a series of parallel slits may be cut” (Mantelet,
e.g., col. 1, ll. 44-50, and col. 2, ll. 16-28, and Figs. 1-3). Mantelet further
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007