Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1
2 25. According to the Farr specification, the term “'widget' has become a
3 term of art, at least in the brewing industry, to describe a device that
4 releases pressurized gas into a can of beer when the can is opened
5 thereby producing a creamy head typical of draught beer.”
6 (Specification at 20).
7 26. The Examiner found, and Farr does not contest, that Frutin I teaches
8 that “the container may be fitted with a device which injects flavor
9 into the container” and provides an example of such a device as being
10 “a modified version of the device disclosed in Patent document WO
11 97/21605 [i.e., Frutin II].” (Frutin I at 6).
12 27. Frutin II teaches “a container [having] a supplemental compartment
13 with a sparingly soluble effervescence inducing gas and a liquid that
14 releases the [flavor] contents upon opening the container, or relieving
15 the pressure within the container.” (Answer at 6; Frutin II at 4 and
16 14).
17 Hoffman and Denton
18 28. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
19 being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Denton et al. (Denton).
20 (Answer at 7-8).
21 29. Claim 1, set forth above (at FF6 1), is representative.
22 30. Hoffman teaches a container for an oxygenated beverage for
23 controlling halitosis where the beverage is a liquid (e.g., water, coffee,
5 The claims are argued together as to this rejection.
6 Finding of fact.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013