Appeal No. 97-0767
Application No. 08/383,996
The main thrust of the appellant’s position is
that
Fox fails to disclose an empty Coca Cola
bottle (envelope) that is “hermetically
sealed” so that it can sustain a charge of
compressed air.
There is a vast difference between a
sealed bat envelope that is not air tight and
one that is, for only the latter can hold a
charge of compressed air “well above
atmospheric pressure.” Moreover, Fox shows
no means to inject compressed air into his
empty Coca Cola bottle and in no way
contemplates pressurizing the bottle.
To justify his Section 103 rejection,
the Examiner says it would be obvious to the
skilled artisan to fully seal Fox’s Coca Cola
bottle envelope and to add a valve thereto in
view of Tanigawa who shows a hollow bat
(metal, wood or plastic) which is pressurized
by gas admitted through a valve in the handle
of the bat.
In Tanigawa the entire, relatively rigid bat
is pressurized, not just a thin skinned plastic
film bottle section in the manner of the present
invention which in the absence of internal
pressure would collapse. Nothing in this
reference suggests to one skilled in the art a
modification of Fox to recreate the claimed
invention by heretically sealing the plastic
bottle and adding a valve thereto. [Reply brief,
pages 1 and 2.]
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007