Ex parte BALLESTEROS - Page 8




                     Appeal No. 1999-0674                                                                                                          
                     Application No. 08/654,536                                                                                                    

                     terms of the product claims is formed by the insertion of the filling spout into the bread product                            
                     as discussed supra.  It is sufficient that the filling spout on the Rheon dispenser is capable of                             
                     penetrating a variety of bread products, including bagel products. Appellant is understood to                                 
                     admit on page 3 of the reply brief that the Rheon dispenser is not limited to use with croissants.                            
                              Furthermore, the rejection of the product claims is not based on the                                                 
                     Rheon brochure alone.  Instead, the rejection is based on the Rheon brochure and the Edhard                                   
                     literature discussed supra.  Since the prior art Edhard dispenser and filling spout equipment                                 
                     selected by appellant were commercially available at the time of appellant’s invention, it follows                            
                     that the advantages of that equipment were also known in the art to provide the appropriate                                   
                     motivation needed to inject foodstuff into bread products other than croissants.                                              
                              With particular regard to claim 23, bread products having a toroidal shape are well                                  
                     known in the art.  Furthermore, the Edhard pamphlet identified as “Volumetric metering systems                                
                     for food, etc.” (hereinafter referred to as the Edhard metering systems pamphlet) recognizes a                                
                     toroidal bakery product shape as an alternative to an elongated shape.  This evidence taken                                   
                     collectively would have been ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a                               
                     bread product with a toroidal shape.  In any case, since a toroidal bread product solves no                                   
                     stated problem and has no unexpected result in appellant’s invention, the use of one shape or                                 
                     the other would have been an obvious matter of design choice.  See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d at                                   
                     555, 188 USPQ at 9.  As a result, the recitation in claim 23 that the product has a toroidal                                  
                     shape does not patentably distinguish the subject matter of claim 23 over the prior art.                                      
                              We also disagree with appellant’s argument on page 7 of the main brief that claim 23                                 

                                                                        8                                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007