Appeal 2007-0002
Application 10/188,485
We have no disagreement with the Examiner’s findings that toasting is a
known alternative to grilling for heating bread and that each imparts different taste,
flavor, texture and fat content to the bread. What is lacking in the Examiner’s
reasoning is an explanation of the reason as to why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to employ the specific toasting technique of “impinging
heated air” against the bread. Assuming it would have been obvious to toast the
bread in lieu of grilling, the Examiner still has not provided a clearly articulated
reason why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to substitute
the particular method of impinging heated air to toast the bread, in lieu of toasting
the bread on a griddle or by radiant heat, as disclosed in the prior art. As such, we
find that the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of
claims 1 and 3-10.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We make the following evidence of record:
Smith US 4,338,911 Jul. 13, 1982
Glaros US 4,986,992 Jan. 22, 1991
Naramura US 5,493,958 Feb. 27, 1996
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Naramura, Russell, and
Smith.
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Naramura, Russell, and
Smith, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Glaros.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013