Ex Parte Amigh et al - Page 3

              Appeal 2007-0485                                                                      
              Application 10/457,876                                                                


                                         II.  DISCUSSION                                            
              Indefiniteness                                                                        
                    The Examiner rejects claims 28, 30-34, and 43-51 as indefinite under            
              35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 because “a pizza pan” as recited in line 3 of claims 28          
              and 46 does not have antecedent basis and, therefore, it is unclear whether           
              the pizza pan is the same pizza pan referenced in line 2 of those claims.             
                    Appellants state that line 3 is referencing the same pizza pan as line 2        
              and upon successful resolution of the § 103 rejections, Appellants will               
              amend the claims as suggested by the Examiner by changing “a pizza pan”               
              to “ the pizza pan” in line 3 of claims 28, 46, and 47 (Br. § VII.A).                 
                    In the absence of a dispute between the Examiner and Appellants, we             
              summarily affirm the decision of the Examiner with respect to the rejection           
              under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.                                                           
              Obviousness                                                                           
                    Each of the obviousness rejections advanced by the Examiner relies              
              upon the teachings of Khatchadourian with those of MacManus.  Appellants              
              contend that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of these two             
              references because the proposed modification of Khatchadourian would                  
              render the device of Khatchadourian unsatisfactory for its intended purpose           
              and would change the principle of operation of the Khatchadourian                     
              apparatus (Br. 9-11).  The issue, therefore, is:  Have Appellants successfully        
              shown that there is no reason, suggestion, or motivation to modify the device         
              of Khatchadourian as proposed by the Examiner?                                        
                    Khatchadourian describes an apparatus and method for making pizza.              
              The apparatus includes a rotary index table station 20 (Khatchadourian, p. 7,         

                                                 3                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013