Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,1 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain the obviousness rejection on appeal. Our
reasoning appears below.
As explained in the specification (pages 5 and 6), with
appellant’s method of preparing a pizza, pizza or tomato sauce2
is applied to a pizza shell to form a pizza base, and the pizza
base is cooked for a first predetermined time period and then
cooled to or near room temperature. After this cooking process,
sauce that was applied remains in a moist state, a state similar
1 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
2 The word sauce has been defined as a fluid dressing or
topping. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam
Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1979.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007