Appeal 2006-2640
Application 10/364,657
Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a method of making a loaf
of crustless, sliced bread from a rectangular prismatic loaf of bread, and is
representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of making a loaf of crustless, sliced bread from a
rectangular prismatic loaf of bread, the method comprising:
decrusting the bread by moving the load of bread longitudinally past
cutting blades to remove the crust from four sides of the loaf of bread;
slicing the crustless bread by moving the loaf transversely past a
plurality of blades to slice the loaf; and
packaging the loaf by moving the loaf longitudinally to a packaging
station.
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Duke US 1,493,326 May 6, 1924
Van Poolen US 2,669,377 Feb. 16, 1954
Mantelet US 3,406,730 Oct. 22, 1968
Otto US 4,195,098 Mar. 25, 1980
Koberlein US 4,512,137 Apr. 23, 1985
http://web.archive.org/web/20021019181238/http://www.baking911recipes.
com/bread_pullmanloaf.htm, pages 1-2 (10/2002) (baking911recipes)
The Examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on
appeal:
claims 1 through 9, 18 through 20 and 24 through 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Duke in view of Mantelet and Koberlein
(Answer 3-5);
claims 10 through 17, 23, 29 through 35 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Duke in view of Mantelet and Koberlein, as applied
above, further in view of Otto (Answer 5-6); and
claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
further in view of Duke in view of Mantelet and Koberlein, further in view
of Otto, Van Poolen and baking911recipes (Answer 6).
We affirm.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007