Appeal 2007-0364
Application 09/998,661
(5) MacKendrick discloses the same problem as Hilton, namely the
random shape of chips require them to be randomly packaged in a
low bulk density packaging with a large amount of air space (col.
1, ll. 40-46);
(6) MacKendrick teaches a method of preparing uniformly shaped
chip products by cutting dough sections of any “predetermined
size and shape” from a sheet of dough, enclosing the chip
preforms in a mold, and restraining the chip preforms in the mold
during frying (col. 3, ll. 1-36; Figure 7; and Answer 5);
(7) MacKendrick teaches that the mold members are configured to
impart the desired shape to the fried chips and to restrain the
dough sections during the frying operation (col. 6, ll. 13-69;
Answer 5);
(8) Khalsa teaches cutting “desired dough shapes” from a sheet of
masa dough before the cut shapes are baked, fried, and packaged
(col. 2, ll. 6-7; col. 3, ll. 4-11; col. 4, ll. 63-64);
(9) Khalsa teaches that one “desired shape” of dough preform is
triangular, illustrating a cutting means that provides triangular
dough shapes in alternating orientation (col. 5, ll. 42-47; see
cutting edges 76 in Figure 2).
When determining the patentability of a claimed invention which
combines several known elements, the question is whether there is
something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of making the combination. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982,
986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013