Appeal No. 95-3411
Application 08/040,960
not very meaningful, when their teachings have not been
specifically discussed and particularly when those references
have not been made a part of the basis of the rejection. All
references on which the examiner relies for making a rejection
should be positively recited in the rejection. In re Hoch, 428
F.2d 1341, 1343 n.3, 166 USPQ2d 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970); Ex
parte Movva, 31 USPQ2d 1027, 1028 n.1 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1993); Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1988). Here, the rejection on appeal is over Bado and well
known cook books, and does not include Baus, Kaplan, Bohrman or
Reed.
In any event, it should be noted that what is missing from
Bado and well known cook books is the video (animated) or audio
aspect of the claimed invention. Any prior art which discloses
presenting cooking information in video (animated) or audio form
would fit nicely with Bado. But the examiner has not applied
such a reference.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 4-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bado and well known
cook books cannot be sustained.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007