Appeal No. 1999-2494
Application No. 08/404,676
28. Thus, the dough may be directly baked without a proofing
step. Id., lines 28-30.
Discussion
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness rest on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In order to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must
identify a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of
the cited references to achieve the claimed invention. In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2000). The suggestion or motivation to modify a reference may be
implicit from the prior art as a whole rather than expressly
stated. Id. However, regardless of whether the examiner relies
on an express or implicit showing, he must provide reasons for
finding a limitation to be taught or suggested in the references.
Id.
The examiner found that Perry discloses the invention as
claimed with the exception that Perry fails to teach some of the
particulars of the dough composition. Examiner's Answer, Paper
No. 27, mailed March 24, 1999, page 4. The examiner relies on
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007