Appeal 2006-2640
Application 10/364,657
discloses “a board for supporting the material to be sliced, . . . having groves
between parallel fins or webs for supporting the said material and adapted to
receive the blades during the final stage of the downward displacement of
the tool through the said material” (Mantelet, e.g., col. 1, ll. 51-63, col. 4,
ll. 8-43, and Figs. 3-5).
On this record, we agree with Appellants. The teachings of each of
Duke and Mantelet must be modified by one of ordinary skill in this art in
order to arrive at the separate claimed method steps to which the references
are individually applied. As stated by our reviewing Court, “when
obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing
of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.”
In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (citing B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d
1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the Examiner
has not adduced either explanation or evidence establishing that one skilled
in this art would have so modified the references.
We are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led by the teachings Duke to urge a crusted loaf across the single blade
attached to a support, turning the loaf until all desired sides are crustless.
While this person could have modified the knife/support structure of Duke
to include additional blades to ‘increase efficiency” as the Examiner
contends, we find no suggestion or motivation in the record leading to a
knife/support structure which removes crust from opposite sides of the loaf
as required by claims 4 and 24. “The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007