Appeal 2007-0002
Application 10/188,485
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Russell US 5,735,191 Apr. 7, 1998
Epicurean Online, “Philadelphia Cheesesteak Sandwich Recipe,”
December 16, 2000 (“the Recipe”).
Appellant seeks our review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the Recipe in view of Russell.
ISSUE
The Examiner found the Recipe teaches a method of making a cheesesteak
sandwich including all of the steps of claim 1, except toasting and grilling
simultaneously for a substantial majority of the time (Answer 3) and using
impinging heated air to toast the bread (Answer 4). The Examiner found that
Russell teaches simultaneous heating of meat and bread and that it would have
been obvious to perform the toasting and grilling steps of the Recipe substantially
at the same time, as taught by Russell, so that one component does not cool down
while the other component is cooking (Answer 4 (citing Russell, col. 1, l. 65
through col. 2, l. 2)). The Examiner further found it would have been obvious to
use any type of equipment to toast the rolls, and that the equipment selected
depends on the site at which the sandwich is made, its availability, and economic
factors (Answer 4).
Appellant contends that the prior art fails to teach or suggest using
impinging heated air to toast the bread (Br. 11). The issue before us is whether
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013