Appeal 2007-1390
Application 10/842,392
second flat dockered dough sheet, the combined sheets are
crimped or pressed to seal the edges, and the product is divided
and baked to produce a food product with long storage stability
(Abstract; col. 1, l. 57-col. 2, l. 37; col. 3, ll. 22-29; col. 7, l. 67-
col. 8, l. 2; and col. 8, ll. 9-10); and
(5) Thulin teaches that any conventional cracker dough can be used,
any dough formula can be used, the filling may be jelly or “other
conventional filling,” and a plurality of filler dispensers can be
used (col. 3, ll. 30-31; col. 5, ll. 43-48; and col. 5, ll. 54-57).
When relying on multiple references to establish obviousness, the
Examiner must do more than show that each of the elements of the thing
claimed was independently known in the prior art, rather, it is incumbent
upon the Examiner to identify a reason that would have prompted a person
of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed invention does. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Examples in a reference are merely that,
exemplary of the broader disclosure, all of which is available for all that it
discloses, teaches, or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Widmer, 353 F.2d 752, 757, 147 USPQ 518, 523 (CCPA 1965); see also
In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness which has not been adequately rebutted by
Appellants’ arguments. As shown by factual findings (1) and (3) listed
above, we determine that Morano discloses filled bakery products such as
crackers where a filling is placed in the multilayer bakery product with the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013