Ex Parte Amigh et al - Page 2

              Appeal 2007-0485                                                                      
              Application 10/457,876                                                                
                                        I.  BACKGROUND                                              
                    The invention relates to a method for dispensing pizza sauce onto               
              pizza dough.  Claim 28 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:               
                    1.  A method of dispensing pizza sauce onto an edible pizza dough               
              base supported by a pizza pan on a rotatable disc, the method comprising:             
                    positioning an edible pizza dough base on a pizza pan;                          
                    centering the pizza pan on the rotatable disc;                                  
                    selectively rotating the disc, pizza pan and the edible pizza dough base        
              thereon at a predetermined rate;                                                      
                    moving at least one nozzle over the edible pizza dough base;                    
                    selectively dispensing pizza sauce through the at least one nozzle onto         
              the pizza dough base while the pizza dough base rotates; and                          
                    terminating the dispensing operation.                                           
                    The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:                     
                 1. Claims 28, 30-34, and 43-51 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as              
                    indefinite;                                                                     
                 2. Claims 28, 30, 32-34, 38, and 41-51 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
                    as obvious over Khatchadouran (WO 98/04,137) in view of                         
                    MacManus (US 3,724,417);                                                        
                 3. Claims 31 and 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as obvious over               
                    Khatchadourian and MacManus and further in view of Bakker (US                   
                    5,117,749); and                                                                 
                 4. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as obvious over                    
                    Khatchadourian and MacManus and further in view of Olander (US                  
                    5,997,924).                                                                     

                                                 2                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013