Ex Parte Kuck

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 20, 2004

09908073 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 20, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TED V. KUCK
____________
Appeal No. 2003-2075
Application No. 09/908,073
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before MCQUADE, NASE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-28,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to a method for cutting and boning a fowl to
create a meat cut which includes the scapula bone and its associated muscles
Appeal No. 2003-2075
Application No. 09/908,073
Page 2
(specification, page 2). Appellant refers to the resulting meat cut as a “turkey rib” cut.
A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Sheehy et al. (Sheehy) 6,221,405 Apr. 24, 2001
(filed May 11, 1999)
Denton et al. (Denton), “Broiler Chicken Deboning,” Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, June 1988.
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Denton.
Claims 8, 16 and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Denton in view of Sheehy.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Appeal No. 2003-2075
Application No. 09/908,073
Page 3
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 10 and 18 recites a method for
forming a meat cut from a carcass of a fowl comprising the step of removing and/or
separating the scapula bone and muscles adhering to the scapula bone from the
carcass of the fowl. The examiner has rejected claims 1, 10 and 18, as well as claims
2-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-23, 27 and 28 depending therefrom, as being anticipated by
Denton. Our understanding of Denton’s deboning method is consistent with appellant’s
explanation on page 6 of the brief. Specifically, Denton discloses a method wherein the
shoulder blade (scapula) is removed from the breast of the chicken while leaving the
muscles associated with the shoulder blade with the breast muscle. We reach this
conclusion based on our reading of the descriptions associated with photos 26-29.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is apparent that Denton does not disclose a
method for forming a meat cut comprising the step of removing or separating the
scapula bone and muscles adhering to the scapula bone from the carcass of the fowl
and therefore does not anticipate the subject matter of independent claims 1, 10 and 18
or the claims depending therefrom. Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, 27 and 28 as being anticipated by Denton.
Sheehy, relied upon by the examiner for a teaching of bonding meat cuts
together, does nothing to cure the above-noted deficiency of Denton. It follows that we
Appeal No. 2003-2075
Application No. 09/908,073
Page 4
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 8, 16 and 24-26 as being unpatentable over
Denton in view of Sheehy.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDB/eld
Appeal No. 2003-2075
Application No. 09/908,073
Page 5
KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
THE KINNEY & LANGE BUILDING
312 SOUTH THIRD STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002