Appeal No. 96-1548
Application 08/288,127
because the flow speed of the water and noodles varies thus
affecting the cooking time (Ohki, page 3).
“When relying on numerous references or a modification of
prior art, it is incumbent upon the examiner to identify some
suggestion to combine references or make the modification.”
In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). See also In re Dembiczak, __ F.3d __, __, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1359, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We
determine that the examiner has not identified any reason,
suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of Oki and
Ohki in the manner proposed (see the Brief, page 8, and the
Answer, page 3). The examiner fails to present reasoning or
explanation why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention would have been motivated to use
boiling water inside the pipes to cook the noodles, as taught
by Ohki, with the boiling apparatus of Oki where only warm
water is initially used with the noodles in the pipes (see the
paragraph bridging pages 2-3 of the Final Rejection). There
is also no reasoning or explanation by the examiner supporting
the proposed combination of references in light of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007