Appeal 2007-0875
Application 10/774,692
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Ohmura discloses a process for providing a food having a
decreased bulk suitable for storage where all the qualities,
including bulk, can be restored by heating (col. 3, ll. 4-10);
(2) Ohmura discloses several embodiments where the process
includes a heat treatment of the food product, compression to a
decreased bulk of 0.01 to 0.9 times the original bulk, freezing or
sealing, followed by restoration to the original bulk by heating
(col. 4, ll. 8-18; col. 4, l. 50-col. 5, l. 19; col. 8, ll. 29-34);
(3) Ohmura teaches that the initial heat treatment of the bread includes
baking or semi-baking, where semi-baking is a state not to be
colored, exemplified as heating the bread to about 150º to 250ºC
for 5 to 30 minutes (col. 5, ll. 47-49; col. 6, ll. 25-42);
(4) Ohmura teaches that the bread may be subjected to slicing but it is
most desirable to use the bread in its whole state (col. 6, ll. 44-64);
and
(5) Ohmura also teaches that the technique of the invention is
applicable to a bread which contains an edible filling material,
such as a “specific food material sandwiched between foods such
as breads” (col. 18, ll. 50-62, italics added; col. 36, ll. 23-24).
Implicit in any review of the Examiner’s obviousness analysis is that
the claim must first have been correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013