Appeal No. 2005-0264
Application No. 09/139,298
series” (page 400, second paragraph). As noted by the examiner,
Stear discloses that “[m]ore than 100 of these systems have been
installed worldwide, some of which control not only the batching
of ingredients but also the production line” (id.). Also, it
would appear that appellant acknowledges at page 1 of the
specification that automated baking apparatus were known in the
art. It is appellant’s contention that Stear is directed to the
commercial baking of large-scale quantities of baked goods, and
that “[n]one of the references singly or combined teach
permitting the end user to directly enter an order into which
produces a baked product from raw materials [sic]” (page 4 of
principal brief, last paragraph). Appellant further maintains
that “[n]one of the references are directed to the problem of
delivering custom baked goods on demand at the point of delivery”
(page 5 of principal brief, first paragraph).
At the outset, we find no patentable distinction between the
claimed consumer who orders a particular baked product and an
operator at a commercial bakery who inputs the data for a desired
final product. Manifestly, such an operator can also be an
ultimate consumer. Moreover, we take official notice of the fact
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007