Appeal 2007-0002
Application 10/188,485
than merely toasting the bread, such as is done for example in a conventional
toaster. Appellants have invoked a term of art in its method claim by the use of the
word “impinging.” This step would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of the Specification (FF 2) to describe a particular process of toasting
bread using an impingement oven or equivalent device to deliver forced, heated air
against the bread.
The combined teachings of the Recipe and Russell fail to disclose or render
obvious the step of toasting the bread by impinging heated air surroundingly
against the bread (FF 4, 6). The Recipe teaches to toast the bread on a griddle
(FF 3), and Russell teaches to heat the bread using radiant heat (FF 5). In response
to this deficiency in the art, the Examiner stated, “It would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art to use any type of equipment to toast the rolls. The
equipment selected depends on the site at which the sandwich is made, its
availability and economic factor” (Answer 4). The Examiner further explained,
It would have been recognized by one skilled in the art
that different cooking methods give different flavor,
texture and taste…. Thus, one would also choose to toast
the bread instead of grilling when it is desired to obtain
bread with no additional fat at all. Thus, choosing a
different method for heating the bread is not unobvious
because both grilling and toasting are known alternative
heating methods for bread. The decision to select either
one depends on the taste, flavor, texture and fat content
desired. Thus, it would have been obvious to choose
different combinations of cook method depending on the
taste and flavor desired” (Answer 6).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013