Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ
the pan and lid assembly of the type described in Perkins as the
pan and lid assembly of the pizza base making apparatus taught by
Killingbeck, motivated by a reasonable expectation of
successfully “increasing the number of pizzas [sic., pizza bases]
which can be prepared at one time.” See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d
488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[A] greater
production rate [of pizza bases]” for a given time period would
have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the pan
and lid assembly of the type described in Perkins in the
apparatus of Killingbeck. See In re Clinton, 527 F.2d 1226,
1229, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA 1976)(“Economics alone would
motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art...”).
It follows that the combined teachings of Killingbeck and
Perkins would have rendered the subject matter of claims 9
through 14 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9 through 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Killingbeck
and Perkins.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007