Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
Moreover, as is readily apparent from the teachings of Westover,
the two conveyors described therein allow the reuse of the upper
and bottom irons (lid assembly and pan) in a continuous manner to
improve the production rate of pizza bases.
Under the circumstances recounted above, 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 in the pizza base making system of Westover, motivated by
a reasonable of expectation of successfully improving the
production rate of pizza bases due to using Westover’s conveyors
and Perkins’ pan and lid assembly.3 Thus, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15 through 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Killingbeck, Perkins and Westover.
However, the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 5
through 7 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Killingbeck, Perkins and Westover is on different footing. As
indicated supra, Killingbeck and Perkins do not teach the claimed
“elongate members in array”. Westover does not remedy this
deficiency in Killingbeck and Perkins. Yet, the examiner has not
3 Killingbeck is cumulative since it, like Westover, teaches
a mixer, a cutter, a proofer, and an oven for making pizza bases.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007