Michael Hobel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2021

2020003435 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/375,223 07/29/2014 Michael Hobel HOBEL ET AL - 1 PCT 8069
25889 7590 04/28/2021
COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
EXAMINER
BECKER, DREW E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@collardroe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HOBEL, NORBERT KRAIHAMER, and
PETER AUGENDOPLER
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JULIA HEANEY, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7, 24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed July 29, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed June
4, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed December 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 5, 2020 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed
April 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventors and a
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to a method for producing baked
goods having a predefined shape. Spec. 1. Claim 1, the only claim on
appeal, is reproduced below (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 25–26):
1. A method for producing a baked good in a predefined shape
comprising:
(a) providing a mold comprising a top mold part and a
bottom mold part and delimiting a closable mold cavity having
a mold cavity volume, wherein depressions are provided within
a mold wall of the top mold part and degassing openings are
provided only in the depressions within the mold wall of the top
mold part, the top mold part being articulated to the bottom
mold part via a hinge joint;
(b) introducing into the mold cavity a piece of dough
coordinated with the mold cavity volume in terms of weight;
(c) applying a closing force to the top mold part such that
the mold cavity is closed to form a closed mold;
(d) causing the piece of the dough to undergo a rising in
the closed mold;
(e) ending the rising, the ending occurring via heating of
the mold cavity to a baking temperature; and
(f) baking the piece of the dough in the closed mold
cavity directly after the rising to cause an oven rising, wherein
the oven rising causes the piece of the dough to be applied to
the mold wall of the top mold part without exiting the mold due
to volume enlargement of the piece of the dough, wherein the
oven rising of the piece of the dough displaces, into the
depressions, gas from the mold cavity and, via the degassing
openings in the depressions, discharges from the closed mold

private investor. Appeal Br. 1. An assignment (Reel/Frame 035532/0978)
filed April 30, 2015 lists the inventors as well as H.U. PRIVATSTIFTUNG
having the address Renngasse 1 Vienna, Austria A-1010 as the assignees of
the application.
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

3
cavity the gas, the baking being initiated by the heating of the
mold cavity to the baking temperature, the baking causing the
piece of the dough to completely fill up the closed mold cavity
and to displace gas during the baking, the baking causing the
dough to form the baked good, the baked good comprising a
surface region and protrusions projecting from the surface
region surrounding the protrusions, the protrusions projecting
beyond the surface region and being defined by the depressions
in the mold wall of the top mold part,
wherein the gas exiting from the piece of dough during the
baking can exit from the mold only in an area of the
depressions in the mold wall of the top mold part in an area of
the projections projecting beyond the surface region of the
baked good, the piece of dough being displaced into the
depressions by the oven rising and completely filling the
depressions as the gas displaced into the depressions is
completely driven out from the depressions by the piece of
dough.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Zaiser US 701,662 June 3, 1902
Leahy US 891,085 June 16, 1908
Kopmann US 2,139,830 Dec. 13, 1938
Turner US 3,290,154 Dec. 6, 1966
Andersen (“WO’295”) WO 2004/098295 A1 Nov. 18, 2004
Townsend et al.
(“GB’157”)
GB 2 414 157 A Nov. 23, 2005

Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

4
REJECTION
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as being
unpatentable over GB’157, WO’295, Turner, Zaiser, Leahy, and Kopmann.
Final Act. 2.

OPINION
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found GB’157 discloses a method
for producing baked goods using a mold tray with top and bottom mold
parts. Final Act. 2. The Examiner found GB’157 discloses an upper mold
wall providing conical depressions with degassing openings, and where
water vapor is vented only through the degassing openings of the top mold
part. Id.
The Examiner found GB’157 does not explicitly disclose molds with
depressions in the mold wall that form protrusions on the baked good,
degassing openings only in the depressions, and a hinge joint, as well as the
method steps of rising in the mold, end rising by heating to a baking
temperature, and oven rising to completely fill the mold as recited in claim
1. Final Act. 3, 5.
The Examiner found WO’295 discloses a method for making baking
goods using a mold with depressions in order to produce decorative
protrusions on the baked goods, the mold also having degassing openings or
protrusions to allow dough to fill the mold without formation of surface
depressions due to trapped gasses. Final Act. 3. The Examiner found Zaiser
discloses a method for making baked goods by placing dough on a mold
plate having a depression with openings that permit the dough to fill the
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

5
depressions and for gas to be removed through the openings so that the
baked good has decorative protrusions. Id. The Examiner found Kopmann
discloses a method for molding bakery products by providing a mold, where
the mold walls have spaced apart depressions and degassing openings that
form protrusions on the finished bakery product. Id. The Examiner found
Turner discloses a method for producing bread cups by providing a closable
mold with walls, placing dough in the mold cavity, allowing the dough to
rise in the closed mold cavity, and then baking the dough where the dough
completely fills the mold cavity. Id. at 3–4.
In view of the cited prior art, the Examiner determined it would have
been obvious to incorporate the steps of rising dough in the mold of GB’157
prior to baking and to allow the dough to completely fill the mold cavity.
Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious
to have provided depressions in the mold to provide protrusions in the baked
good to provide a pleasing and attractive design on the upper surface of the
baked good. Id. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to
have provided degassing openings only in the depressions in the mold of
GB’157, because GB’157 discloses varying the number, size, and
configuration of vent openings, and the lack of degassing openings in the top
mold of GB’157 would have disfigured the baking good due to the retained
gas at the top of the mold during rising and baking. Id. The Examiner
determined that providing the degassing openings only within the top mold
depressions would have permitted the expanding dough to completely fill
these depressions, and provide the desired decorative protrusions on the
baked good. Id. at 5.
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

6
Regarding the presence of a hinge joint in claim 1, the Examiner
found Leahy discloses a baking pan where top and bottom mold parts are
joined by a hinge joint, and determined it would have been obvious to have
incorporated a hinge joint into GB’157 in order to provide a simple and
efficient means for joining the mold parts of GB’157 for baking dough when
used in a batch process or domestic kitchen. Id. at 5–6.

Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that the combination of references fails to disclose
the method recited in claim 1 of providing a mold that includes degassing
openings only in depressions within a mold wall of a top mold part. Appeal
Br. 11–21. Appellant argues WO’295 teaches away from having a
degassing opening in a depression in a mold wall into which dough rises. Id.
at 16. Appellant argues that Zaiser and Kopmann do not use a closed mold,
and as such cannot give any indication that degassing occurs only via
degassing openings in the area of depressions for forming projections in the
baked good. Id. at 20–21. In addition, Appellant argues that in view of the
disclosures of Zaiser, Turner, and WO’295, which disclose that the weight
of the dough fills the depressions in the mold wall, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have moved the depressions in the mold wall from the
bottom mold part to the top mold part of GB’157. Id. at 19–24; Reply Br. 4.
Thus, Appellant contends none of the secondary references would
have suggested adding depressions into the lids of GB’157 and placing vents
within the depressions, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
found such a modification desirable, because the mold lid in GB’157 is only
partially filled with a rising piece of dough. Id. at 22. Appellant contends
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

7
that even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have added projections to
the lid of GB’157, one of ordinary skill in the art would have placed
degassing openings throughout the entire lid and not just in the depressions
within the mold wall of the top mold part as recited in claim 1. Id. As such,
Appellant contends the Examiner is engaging in impermissible hindsight.
Id.

Issue
Did the Examiner err in determining that the method of making a
baked good including providing a mold with a top mold part including
depressions where degassing openings are provided only in the depressions
within the mold wall of the top mold part would have been obvious over the
cited prior art?

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. GB’157 discloses
hollow concave molds (3) including a top mold part (4) including vents (7).
GB’157 8, ll. 6–14; Figs. 1, 3. GB’157 discloses:
[t]he exact size and configuration of the vents required in any
particular case will depend on the product to be manufactured,
but, in practice, a suitable arrangement of the vent or vents in
each lid to achieve the desired configuration and texture of the
product can readily be determined by simple trials.
Id. 2, l. 22 – 3, l. 3.
In the instant case, the Examiner determined it would have been
obvious to have incorporated decorative depressions into the top mold of
GB’157 to provide a pleasing and attractive design of the protrusions on the
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

8
upper surface of the baked good and that mold surfaces commonly included
degassing openings within the depressions. Final Act. 3–5, citing GB’295,
Figs. 5–8, 2, ll. 29–31; Zaiser, Figs. 1–2; Kopmann Fig. 3. In addition, the
Examiner found allowing dough to rise in a closed mold cavity prior to
baking to allow the dough to completely fill the mold cavity was known in
the art. Final Act. 5; Turner, col. 5, ll. 11–25. Thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art, when utilizing such a dough to produce a baked product with an
attractive design on the upper surface of the baked good, would have taken
into account not only the disclosures of Zaiser and Kopmann, but also the
direction in GB’157 regarding the placement of vents for degassing
purposes.
In this regard, Appellant does not argue one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have used the molds of GB’157 with a dough that is allowed to
rise and then bake in the same mold. Thus, we are not convinced that as a
result of the “simple trials” discussed in GB’157, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have failed to arrive at the configuration of degassing openings
only in the top mold depressions as recited in claim 1 in providing a baked
good made of a dough that is allowed to rise prior to baking with a design on
its upper surface in order to prevent disfiguration of the design. The prior art
makes clear that degassing openings are important in order to allow such a
dough to rise and completely fill the mold cavity, which is important in
order to allow for the particular design to be imparted to the baked product.
WO’295 3, ll. 20–26; Zaiser, 2nd col., ll. 54–60.
Thus, although Appellant contends the prior art discloses the designs
are imparted to the baked good on the bottom of the mold, the concept of
filling the mold cavity completely by venting the gas is disclosed in the prior
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

9
art. See WO’295, 3, ll. 20–26. As Appellant has pointed out, gas present in
the mold cavity between lower and upper mold parts would escape through
the top of the mold and not through the bottom, a concept that GB’157
already acknowledges. Appeal Br. 15; GB’157 1, ll. 14–17, 2, ll. 18–22.
Further, Appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been concerned with the appearance of the top portion of the bread
product in WO’295 because such forms the interior of the hollow bread
product (Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 3), does not consider situations where the
desired bread product has surfaces which are all outward facing as in
GB’157.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that WO’295 teaches away from
having a degassing opening in a depression in the mold wall into which the
dough rises; nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s arguments with respect to
the open molds disclosed in Zaiser and Kopmann. See Appeal Br. 16, 20,
21. Such arguments appear to be directed to each reference individually
rather than the prior art as a whole. In an obviousness rejection, the
combination of references must be considered as a whole, rather than the
specific teaching of each reference. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971); In re Simon, 461 F.2d 1387, 1390 (CCPA 1972).
In addition, the idea in GB’157 that the molds need not be completely
filled (see Appeal Br. 22; GB’157 3, ll. 7–11) does not undermine the
combination proposed by the Examiner, which would require the dough to
rise prior to baking to completely fill the mold in order to achieve the design,
a concept which is not excluded by GB’157. Moreover, Appellant’s reliance
on other embodiments in GB’157, such as including ridges in the lower part
and the steps of inverting the baked product and coating the baked product
Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

10
(Appeal Br. 12, 22), are not persuasive as such embodiments are alternative
embodiments and are not required by GB’157. See GB’157 4, ll. 4–20; 5, ll.
9–11.
Appellant’s further arguments with respect to Turner and Leahy
(Appeal Br. 16–17; 20-21) are not persuasive, because, as the Examiner
points out, Turner is not relied upon for the configuration of the particular
mold. Rather, Turner is relied on as evidence that the pre-baking rising step,
and the use of baking heat to end the rising step were well-known in the art.
Ans. 12–13. Similarly, Leahy was only relied on to show that baking molds
with top and bottom parts were commonly hinged together. Id. at 16.
Accordingly, we are of the view that when the prior art is considered
as a whole, the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to have
modified the top mold of GB’157 to include depression with degassing
openings present only in the depressions would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence that
such a configuration of degassing openings would have been more than a
result of the “simple trials” discussed in GB’157 based on the desired baked
product, both in the type of dough used and decorative top surface to be
produced.

Appeal 2020-003435
Application 14/375,223

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103(a) GB’157, WO’295,
Turner, Zaiser,
Leahy, Kopmann
1

RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED