Ex Parte Tippmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 26, 2003

09157388 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 26, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte EUGENE TIPPMANN
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS, and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 18. These claims constitute all of the claims in the
application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a method of preparing a
pizza. A basic understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 10, respective copies of
which appear in an appendix to the main brief (Paper No. 17).
Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
2
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Bucci 2,668,117 Feb. 2, 1954
McDonald et al 5,256,432 Oct. 26, 1993
(McDonald)
The following rejection is the sole rejection before us for
review.
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bucci in view of McDonald.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 18), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 17 and 20).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
1 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
2 The word sauce has been defined as a fluid dressing or
topping. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam
Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1979.
3
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,1 and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain the obviousness rejection on appeal. Our
reasoning appears below.
As explained in the specification (pages 5 and 6), with
appellant’s method of preparing a pizza, pizza or tomato sauce2
is applied to a pizza shell to form a pizza base, and the pizza
base is cooked for a first predetermined time period and then
cooled to or near room temperature. After this cooking process,
sauce that was applied remains in a moist state, a state similar
Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
3 The word coagulate has been defined as “to cause to become
viscous or thickened into a coherent mass.” Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield,
Massachusetts, 1979.
4
to that of a conventionally made pizza and not a coagulated,3
dried, or hardened state. Once cooled, pizza toppings are
applied to the pizza base and the fully prepared pizza is either
placed in a refrigerator for future use or further heated for a
second predetermined time period and subsequently served to a
consumer. According to appellant (specification, page 10), the
advantage of the disclosed process is that cooking the pizza with
only sauce thereon eliminates the possibility of cheese and moist
tomato sauce bleeding together as the cheese melts.
Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 10 set forth a method
of preparing a pizza comprising the steps of, inter alia, forming
a pizza shell, applying a predetermined quantity of sauce to the
upper surface of the shell to form a pizza base, cooking the
pizza base, and maintaining the sauce in an uncoagulated state
during cooking of the pizza base.
Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
5
At this point, we recognize from the content of claims 1 and
10, read in light of the underlying specification, the feature of
the sauce being maintained in an uncoagulated state during
cooking of the pizza base, i.e., the fluid sauce remains moist
during cooking of the pizza base and does not become viscous or
thickened.
Turning now to the evidence of obviousness, it is clear to
this panel of the Board, from a review of the Bucci patent
(column 3, lines 50 through 72), that the patentee expressly
requires a sealing agent (tomato puree or peach nectar) to have
moisture (water) driven off to effect a remaining coagulated
substance that forms a moisture-impervious layer. Based upon the
above very specific reference teaching of Bucci, we conclude that
the Bucci document simply would not have been suggestive to one
having ordinary skill in the art of appellant’s step of
maintaining sauce in an uncoagulated state during cooking.
Turning now to the McDonald reference, we are aware that, as
indicated by the examiner, it was not applied to show other than
a topping disk. We would only add that the McDonald patent does
not appear to overcome the above noted deficiency of the Bucci
Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
6
patent. For these reasons, the obviousness rejection before us
cannot be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC:pgc
Appeal No. 2003-0127
Application No. 09/157,388
7
NIXON PEABODY, LLP
401 9TH STREET, NW
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2128