Ex parte NEUHAUS - Page 11

          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             
               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.                                             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007