Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
the claimed oven. Compare the Answer, pages 4-5, with the Brief
and the Reply Brief in their entirety. The appellants also have
not disputed the examiner’s determination that the claimed
functional language “producing par-baked pizza crusts” does not
render the claimed system structurally different from the
apparatus disclosed by Perkins. Compare the Answer, page 5, with
the Brief and the Reply Brief in their entirety.
The appellants only argue that Perkins does not teach the
claimed functionally defined position of lids, i.e., “the lid
assembly positioned such that it contacts each dough portion, the
lid assembly comprising a plurality of lids, each lid
corresponding to an associated recess of the pan, each lid
contacting a corresponding dough portion...” See the Brief,
pages 8-9 and the Reply Brief, page 3. We are not persuaded by
this argument.
We find that Perkins teaches that a spacing between the
formers 8 corresponding to the claimed lids and the concavities 5
corresponding to the claimed recesses is a half of the spacing
needed for preventing the plate of the upper mould part 3 from
touching the rising dough in the concavities 5. See page 5, line
19 to page 6, line 5. We also find that Perkins teaches (page 3,
lines 29-34 and page 7, lines 1-5) that its
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007