Ex Parte Gehan et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2006-3314                                                                              
                Application 09/761,322                                                                        

                                             INTRODUCTION                                                     
                      The claims are directed to a novelty cookie product.  Claims 1, 4, and                  
                8 are illustrative:                                                                           
                      1.  A novelty cookie product comprising a base cake having a three-                     
                dimensional image thereon and a layer of confection covering at least a                       
                portion of the image, thereby forming a latent image that can be revealed by                  
                removing at least a portion of the confection.                                                
                      4.  A cookie product according to claim 1 wherein the image on the                      
                base cake is formed by rotary molding to have a pattern of lands and                          
                recesses such that the confection, when partially removed at least partially                  
                fills in the recesses while it is removed from a portion of the image to make                 
                the image visible to a consumer.                                                              
                      8.  A method of making a novelty cookie product comprising baking a                     
                base cake having a three-dimensional image thereon and applying thereto,                      
                over the image, a layer of confection to cover at least a portion of the image,               
                thereby forming a latent image that can be revealed by removing at least a                    
                portion of the confection.                                                                    

                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show                       
                unpatentability:                                                                              
                Persson   AUS 224485  Feb. 26, 1959                                                           
                Pappas   US 5,534,281  Jul.    9, 1996                                                        
                Blaschke   US 6,312,743 B1  Nov.  6, 2001                                                     
                      The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:                             
                1.  Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                          
                as unpatentable over Persson and Blaschke.                                                    
                2.  Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                                  
                unpatentable over Persson in view of Blaschke and further in view of                          
                Pappas.                                                                                       

                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013