Appeal No. 2004-2014
Application 09/874,672
Whether a prior art reference is from an analogous art is a
question of fact. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In the present case, we find that both Weber and Moline are
within the field of the inventors’ endeavor as they, like the
claimed invention, are directed to frozen dough. While Weber
discloses a refrigerated cookie dough composition, Moline
discloses a frozen dough for making a pizza. Even if they are
not considered to be within the field of the inventors’ endeavor,
we determine that they are at least directed to the problems
associated with the claimed frozen dough and the frozen dough
taught in Pampas. They are either directed to providing score
lines for improving the breakability of frozen dough or improving
a frozen dough composition. Thus, from our perspective, both
Weber and Moline are analogous art and can be properly combined
with Pampas.
In any event, as is apparent from the above findings,
Weber and Moline are deemed cumulative with respect to the
teachings provided in Pampas and the official notice taken by
the examiner.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007