Appeal No. 97-4153
Application No. 08/498,375
OPINION
In rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness
(see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is established when the teachings of the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re
Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
This is a combination claim in which the combination
comprises a collapsible pouch having a female socket creating the
mouth of the pouch, a charge of flavor crystals deposited in the
pouch, and a removable male plug insertable in the pouch and
provided with a normally closed valve. Nadler discloses a
collapsible pouch for dispensing liquid juices. At the very
least, Nadler fails to disclose or teach the charge of flavor
crystals located in the pouch, and the examiner’s position that
the flavor crystals limitation is merely an intended use is
totally without merit. Paquette, the secondary reference, fails
to alleviate this deficiency. This being the case, the
references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of the claim.
The rejection is not sustained.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007