Appeal No. 2006-0276
Application 10/144,463
Laughlin et al. (Laughlin) 5,855,945 Jan. 5, 1999
Jeremy 5,901,711 May 11, 199
Vecchiola et al. (Vecchiola) 5,911,226 Jun. 15, 1999
Wellman et al. (Wellman), “Pushup pasta,” 55 Supermarket Business, Iss. 2, page 54 (Feb. 15,
2000).
Hayes, “Getting Hyper Over Convenience Food,” New York Times, pages 4.5 (late ed. (east
coast). May 28, 2000).
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claims 21, 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes,
evinced by Wellman, in view of Magee and Vecchiola (answer, pages 3-5);
claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes, evinced by
Wellman, in view of Magee and Vecchiola, as applied to claims 21, 22 and 24, further in view of
Jeremy (answer, pages 5 and 6); and
claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes, evinced by
Wellman, in view of Magee and Vecchiola, as applied to claims 21, 22 and 24, further in view of
Laughlin (answer, page 6).
Appellant argues claims 21, 22 and 24 as a group and claims 23 and 25 separately (brief,
e.g., pages 4 and 8-9). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 21, 23 and 25 as
representative of the grounds of rejection and appellant’s groupings of claims. 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant, we
refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
rod-shaped eating utensil made of bread for winding elongated pasta encompassed by appealed
independent claim 21 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Hayes,
Wellman, Magee and Vecchiola to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed
invention was made. Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established
by the examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based
on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of appellant’s arguments in the
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007