Appeal No. 2003-1775
Application No. 09/845,925 Page 6
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to
select Kaiser as an applied reference, or select teachings
therefrom, since Kaiser allegedly does not show the claimed
sandwich structure. In particular, appellants maintain (brief,
page 16) that the claim 39 limitations “said [cut] bread portions
being sealed by compression [between said outer margins and] in a
sealed marginal area” and “closely spaced depressions of
compacted bread [along said sealed marginal area] to crimp the
[sic] compressed marginal area [at spaced points] to prevent the
bread portions from separating [at said outer perimeters]” are
not taught or suggested by the applied prior art.
Concerning these limitations, appellants argue that “no seal
is suggested by the cookbook” (brief, page 17) and refer to the
compression seal shown in their drawing figures 3 and 4 and
several portions of their specification in asserting that the
claimed seal “structure is not suggested by the cookbook” (brief,
page 17 and reply brief). We disagree for the reasons discussed
herein and in the answer.
Appellants misinterprets the teachings of Kaiser in their
assertion that “no seal is suggested by the cookbook” (brief,
page 17). This is so since Kaiser (page 11) instructs that the
Tartmaster or Krimpkut sealers are used to cut, crimp and seal at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007