Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
explained why or how the combined teachings of Killingbeck,
Perkins and Westover would have suggested these features embraced
by claims 5 through 7. Accordingly, we are again constrained to
reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 through 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Killingbeck, Perkins and Westover.
CLAIMS 44 and 47
The disclosures of Killingbeck and Perkins have been
discussed above and in the Answer. With respect to claim 47, the
examiner recognizes that Perkins does not teach that the formers
8 of the upper mould part 3 have a plurality of apertures.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the
disclosure of Smith. The appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s finding that “Smith teaches a baking system comprising
plural recesses and lids... with apertures in the lids...”
Compare the Answer, page 7, with the Brief, pages 19-20 and the
Reply Brief, pages 5-6. We observe that Smith teaches that these
lid apertures relieve “the internal pressure and [permit] the
rise of gas bubbles in the dough beneath the cores.” See page 1,
lines 88-94.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007