Appeal 2006-3314
Application 09/761,322
OPINION
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Persson and Blaschke. 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.
The Examiner relies on Persson for a disclosure of a sugar
confectionery having a printed picture on the surface. The picture is placed
in a depression in the surface of the confectionery and covered with an
opaque coating which can be licked off by the consumer to reveal the
picture. (Answer 3). The Examiner concedes that Persson differs from the
present invention in that it is a sugar confectionery and not a cookie.
(Answer 4). However, the Examiner maintains that it would have been
obvious to change the substrate in Persson from a candy to a cookie in view
of Blaschke’s disclosure of a ready-for-use cookie dough provided with
score lines or grooves that define equally sized portions to be broken off and
baked. (Answer 4). The Examiner relies on Pappas for a teaching of using
rotary molding to form designs on foods such as cookies, crackers and'
snacks. (Answer 5).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Persson’s picture is flat, i.e., two-
dimensional, and covered with a uniform coating. Therefore, Appellants
maintain that the Examiner’s proposed combination fails to disclose or
suggest a three-dimensional image as required by the present claims.
(Br. 6).
The Examiner, however, takes the position that Persson discloses a
three-dimensional image as claimed because the picture, when placed in the
surface depression, “gives the image an illusion of depth.” (Answer 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013