Appeal 2007-0485
Application 10/457,876
method of relative translational movement between the nozzle and turntable
or plate. But whether one of ordinary skill in the art indexes the turntable or
the nozzle, the result is the same: A spiral of material is applied to the
substrate. MacManus shows that those of ordinary skill in the food art
understood that the two types of relative translation movement were
equivalent for dispensing a spiral of material on a food substrate. “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l. Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The
art here shows that those of ordinary skill in the food processing art
understood that either known method of relative translational movement will
result in the predictable result of a spiral of material on the food substrate.
In our analysis, we do not overlook the fact that Khatchadourian is not
limited to applying just sauce to the pizza. Khatchadourian also moves the
plates to other stations in which dispensers drop toppings onto the sauce.
However, we cannot agree with Appellants that changing from an indexing
plate apparatus to an indexing nozzle apparatus would render the other
dispensing stations ineffective or inoperable. Whether one is dispensing
sauce or toppings the relative translational movement will accomplish the
same spiral application. Therefore, as found by the Examiner, those of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that all of Khatchadourian
stations could use the dispenser movement method described by MacManus
in lieu of the indexing plates. Contrary to the arguments of Appellants, the
Examiner’s reasoning is grounded in the objective evidence provided by the
prior art. “[T]he suggestion test is not a rigid categorical rule. The
motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013