Appeal 2007-0364
Application 09/998,661
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wisdom in view of Hilton, Khalsa, and MacKendrick (Answer 3).2
Appellants contend that the applied references do not teach or suggest
all of the claim limitations, specifically the step of restraining triangular
tortilla chip preforms while arranged in alternating orientations within molds
while cooking or removing the preforms (Br. 3-4).
Appellants also contend that there is no motivation or suggestion for
combining the teachings of the applied references (Br. 3-4 and 6-7).
The Examiner contends that the applied prior art, as a whole, suggests
every claim limitation and teaches the benefits of restraining the preforms
while cooking (Answer 4-6).
Accordingly, the issues in this appeal are as follows: (1) do the
applied references teach or suggest every claim limitation?; and (2) is there
sufficient motivation or suggestion for combining the references as proposed
by the Examiner?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, showing that every claim
limitation was known in the prior art, as well as showing a reason,
suggestion or motivation for combining these various process limitations.
2 We refer to and cite from the “new Examiner’s Answer” dated
Jun. 28, 2005. We note that the Examiner has inadvertently omitted the
statement of the rejection on page 3 of this Answer (¶ (9)). We hold this
omission harmless since the correct rejection on appeal has been recognized
by Appellants (Br. 3, ¶ VI) and has been previously stated by the Examiner
(Final Office Action dated Jun. 2, 2004, and the Answer dated Dec. 2, 2004,
page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013