Appeal 2007-0875
Application 10/774,692
Appellants contend that Ohmura discloses compression of baked
untoasted loaves of bread, and even though it is taught that the loaves can be
sliced, the reference discourages this practice (Br. 11).
Appellants contend that even though slicing is taught, Ohmura does
not teach or suggest toasting individual slices followed by compression (Br.
12).
Appellants contend that Ohmura only discloses baking or semi-baking
bread, not toasting, and Ohmura does not enable the compression of a single
slice of toast or cracking of the crust (Br. 14-16).
The Examiner contends that Ohmura discloses compression of a food
product as a treatment for decreasing the bulk, with restoration of the bulk
after compression, and the food product may include bread slices and
contain fillings (Answer 4-5).
The Examiner contends that Ohmura teaches a heat treatment of the
bread, exemplified as baking, which will cause toasting (Answer 5-6).
Accordingly, the issues presented in this appeal are as follows:
(1) does Ohmura teach or suggest treatment of a food product which
includes sliced bread?; and, (2) does Ohmura disclose or suggest toasting of
the sliced bread within the meaning of this word as recited in the claims on
appeal?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the reference evidence, which case has not been
adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we AFFIRM the
sole rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as
well as those reasons set forth below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013