Steve Meyer

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2021

2021002736 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16/059,530 08/09/2018 Steve Meyer P07797US3 8424
34082 7590 11/01/2021
ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.
CAPITAL SQUARE
400 LOCUST, SUITE 200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350
EXAMINER
RODDEN, JOSHUA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
crasmussen@zarleylaw.com
emarty@zarleylaw.com
kconrad@zarleylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVE MEYER
____________

Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, TARA L. HUTCHINGS,
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a chop rack for grilling
(Spec. 1, l. 12). Claims 1 and 16, reproduced below, are representative of
the subject matter on appeal.

1. A chop rack comprising:
a tray having a base;
the base having a top portion, a middle portion, and a bottom
portion;
a row of slots positioned in the middle portion, wherein each
slot is configured to only expose a bone of a meat
product to a direct heat source such that the bone is
heated to a higher temperature than the rest of the meat
product and limit grease from the meat product passing
through the slot;
a perimeter of the tray having a continuous sidewall, wherein
the sidewall is configured to retain the grease from the
meat product within the tray;
wherein the top portion and bottom portion are solid; and
a meat product having a bone, wherein the bone is positioned
directly over the at least one slot such that the bone is the
only portion of the meat product exposed to a direct heat
source such that the bone is heated to a higher
temperature than the rest of the meat product and grease
is retained within the tray due to the bone covering the at
least one slot.
16. A chop rack comprising:
a tray having a base;
the base having a top portion, a middle portion, and a bottom
portion;
at least one slot positioned in the middle portion; and
a meat product having a bone, wherein the bone is positioned
directly over the at least one slot such that the bone is the
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

3

only portion of the meat product exposed to a direct heat
source such that the bone is heated to a higher
temperature than the rest of the meat product.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Name Reference Date
Painter Des. 256,654 Sept. 2, 1980 
Chen Des. 417,124 Nov. 30, 1999
Borovicka US D635,825 S Apr. 12, 2011
Williams US 4,566,429 Jan. 28, 1986
Pappas US 5,720,217 Feb. 24, 1998
France US 9,505,542 B2 Nov. 29, 2016
Oak & Cherry Smoked Pork Chops – The BBQ Brethren Forums,
http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125925, last
visited Oct. 11, 2016 (hereinafter “Oak”)

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Painter and Oak.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over France and Oak.
3. Claims 1, 2, 7, and 12–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Borovicka and Oak.
4. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Painter, Oak, and Williams.
5. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over France, Oak, and Williams.
6. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Borovicka, Oak, and Williams.
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

4

7. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Borovicka, Oak, and Chen.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over France, Oak, and Pappas.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
under Painter as a base reference
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable under Painter and Oak is improper (Appeal Br. 2–8).
In particular, the Appellant argues that the rejection lacks articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of
obviousness (Appeal Br. 7, 8).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Act. 2–4, Ans. 3–17).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, claim 1 requires the structural
features of the tray as well as a “meat product” placed over a slot.
Specifically, the claim requires:
a meat product having a bone, wherein the bone is
positioned directly over the at least one slot such that the bone

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

5

is the only portion of the meat product exposed to a direct heat
source such that the bone is heated to a higher temperature than
the rest of the meat product and grease is retained within the
tray due to the bone covering the at least one slot.
(Claim 1, emphasis added).
Here, initially we note that Painter’s tray discloses a row of “circular”
drip openings as opposed to the claimed row of “slots.” Thus, the disclosed
“circular opening” is different in shape than the claimed “slot.” Further,
Painter’s circular openings have not been shown to be of the proper size to
support a pork chop to stand up in the manner claimed. In contrast, Painter’s
circular openings appear to be significantly larger, in relation to other
dimensions of the Painter device, than the size needed to support bone of a
meat product to stand up and would thus not allow the bone when positioned
above the slot to be the “only portion of meat product exposed to [the] direct
heat source” as claimed. Here, the rationale that the combination of
references would have been combined and obvious to try as set forth in the
rejection lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a
conclusion of obviousness. For this reason, this rejection of claim 1, and its
dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 12, and 20, is not sustained. Claims 16–18 are
directed to similar subject matter, and the rejection of these is not sustained
for the same reasons given above.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Painter, Oak, and Williams. Claim 8 requires the slot have a length of
no more than 1.375” and claim 9 requires the slot has a width of no more
than 0.6”.
The rejection cites to Williams at column 3, lines 23–35, as disclosing
the claimed dimensions for the slot and that the combination with the
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

6

primary references discussed above would have been obvious for the
purpose of using a slot of known size to be used in grilling food items (Final
Act. 12). We disagree with Examiner. The tray of Painter uses circular
openings in contrast to the claimed “slot”. Further, while Williams does
disclose a specific slot size for grilling, it does not disclose placing a bone in
that slot, and it would not have been obvious to modify the references in the
cited combination to meet the claimed limitations without impermissible
hindsight. Here, the cited rejections lack articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to support a conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 8 and 9 under Painter, Oak, and Williams is not
sustained.

Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
under France as a base reference
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable under France and Oak is improper (Appeal Br. 2–8).
In particular, the Appellant argues that the rejection lacks articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of
obviousness (Appeal Br. 7, 8).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Act. 5–7, Ans. 3–17).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, claim 1 requires the structural
features of the tray as well as a “meat product” placed over a slot.
Specifically, the claim requires:
a meat product having a bone, wherein the bone is
positioned directly over the at least one slot such that the bone
is the only portion of the meat product exposed to a direct heat
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

7

source such that the bone is heated to a higher temperature than
the rest of the meat product and grease is retained within the
tray due to the bone covering the at least one slot.
(Claim 1, emphasis added).
Here, initially we note that France’s tray shown in Figure 9B does
disclose a row of slots (170, 190) but that it unclear that the slots are sized
large enough to support a meat bone in the manner claimed. Further, the
slots (170, 190) are long in length (relative to their widths), and would
appear to expose other areas of the meat to the direct heat source besides the
“bone” in the manner claimed. The claim requires the bone when positioned
directly over the slot to be the “only portion of meat product exposed to [the]
direct heat source” and the slots in France appear to be of improper size
length to permit this due to the length of the slot. Here, the rationale that the
combination of references would have been obvious to try for the reasonable
expectation of success of cooking the meat near the bone lacks articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of
obviousness. For this reason, the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent
claims 2, 5–7, and 12, is not sustained. Claims 16–18 are directed to similar
subject matter and the rejection of these is not sustained for the same reasons
given above.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over France, Oak, and Williams. Claim 8 requires the slot have a length of
no more than 1.375” and claim 9 requires the slot has a width of no more
than 0.6”.
The rejection cites to Williams at column 3, lines 23–35, as disclosing
the claimed dimensions for the slot and that the combination would have
been obvious for the purpose of using a slot of known size to be used in
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

8

grilling food items (Final Act. 13). We disagree with Examiner. While
Williams does disclose a specific slot size for grilling, it does not disclose
placing a meat bone in the slot and the cited combination would not have
been obvious without impermissible hindsight. Here, the cited rejections
lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a
conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 8 and 9
under France, Oak, and Williams is not sustained.
Claim 10 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over France, Oak, and Pappas. Claim 10 requires the slot have a length
greater than 1.0”. The Examiner cites to Pappas as disclosing this structure
at column 3, lines 29–40, and that the combination would have been obvious
to use a slot with a known size for grilling food items (Final Act. 15). We
disagree with Examiner. While Pappas does disclose a specific slot size for
grilling, it does not disclose placing a bone in that slot and the cited
combination would not have been obvious in the cited combination without
impermissible hindsight. Here, the cited rejection lacks articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of
obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 under France, Oak, and
Pappas is not sustained.

Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
under Borovicka as a base reference
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable under Borovicka and Oak is improper (Appeal Br. 2–
8). In particular, the Appellant argues that the rejection lacks articulated
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

9

reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of
obviousness (Appeal Br. 7, 8).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Act. 7–9, Ans. 3–17).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, claim 1 requires the structural
features of the tray as well as a “meat product” placed over a slot.
Specifically, the claim requires:
a meat product having a bone, wherein the bone is
positioned directly over the at least one slot such that the bone
is the only portion of the meat product exposed to a direct heat
source such that the bone is heated to a higher temperature than
the rest of the meat product and grease is retained within the
tray due to the bone covering the at least one slot.
(Claim 1, emphasis added).
Here, initially we note that Borovicka’s tray in Figure 1 shows
openings that appear to be shaped like “squares” rather than the claimed
shape of a “slot.” Regardless, in Borovicka it’s unclear that the openings are
sized large enough to support the bone in the manner claimed. The claim
requires the bone when positioned over the slot to be the “only portion of
meat product exposed to [the] direct heat source” and the openings in
Borovicka are throughout the tray and thus the openings not supporting the
bone would expose the rest of the meat product to direct heat. Here, the
rationale that the combination of references would have been obvious to try
for the reasonable expectation of success of cooking the meat near the bone
lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a
conclusion of obviousness. For this reason, this rejection of claim 1, and its
dependent claims 2, 7, and 12–15, is not sustained. Claims 16–19 are
Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

10

directed to similar subject matter and the rejection of these claims is not
sustained as well.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Borovicka, Oak, and Williams. Claim 8 requires the slot have a length
of no more than 1.375” and claim 9 requires the slot has a width of no more
than 0.6”.
The rejection cites to Williams at column 3, lines 23–35 as disclosing
the claimed dimensions for the slot and that the combination would have
been obvious for the purpose of using a slot of a known size in grilling food
items (Final Act. 13). We disagree with Examiner. Further, while Williams
does disclose a specific slot size for grilling, it does not disclose placing a
bone in that slot, or would it have been obvious in the cited combination
without impermissible hindsight. Here, the cited rejections lacks articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of
obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under Borovicka,
Oak, and Williams is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Borovicka, Oak, and Chen fails to cure the deficiencies of the base
rejection and this rejection is not sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.

Appeal 2021-002736
Application 16/059,530

11

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6,
12, 20
103 Painter, Oak 1, 2, 5, 6,
12, 20
1, 2, 5–7,
12
103 France, Oak 1, 2, 5–7,
12
1, 2, 7, 12–
19
103 Borovicka, Oak 1, 2, 7, 12–
19
8, 9 103 Painter, Oak,
Williams
8, 9
8, 9 103 France, Oak,
Williams
8, 9
8, 9 103 Borovicka, Oak,
Williams
8, 9
3, 4 103 Borovicka, Oak,
Chen
3, 4
10 103 France, Oak,
Pappas
10
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–20

REVERSED