Appeal No. 2005-0264
Application No. 09/139,298
customer, does not have original descriptive support in the
specification. The examiner states “[w]hile the specification
clearly provides basis for the customer being the one who
purchases the final baked product, it does not clearly imply that
this is the same person who will consume, i.e., eat said product”
(page 9 of answer, second paragraph).
While we agree with the examiner that the terms “customer”
and “consumer” can have different meanings, we concur with the
argument set forth in appellant’s reply brief that the original
specification reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the
art that appellant had in his possession, at the time of filling
the present application, the concept of an automated process that
interfaces with a consumer. The fact that the specification
discloses that an order can be placed by a telephone or a home
computer reasonably conveys that the claimed automated processes
can be used by a consumer or a customer.
We now turn to the examiner’s § 103 rejection. We agree
with the examiner that Stear evidences that it was known in the
art to employ computers to control automated baking processes
wherein “[o]perations parameters are accessible via a ‘menu’
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007