Appeal No. 96-0969
Application 08/200,420
removed from the aperture in the bottle-neck when it is
desired to pour the liquid out of the bottle” (page 1, lines
8-19; emphasis added). Thus, the examiner’s theory of
operation does not comport with DeQuillfeldt’s clear
description of how the device operates. In any event, even if
it were desired to dispense liquid from the bottle with the
stopper in place in the neck of the bottle, as proposed by the
examiner, appellant’s alternative theory that the ball valve
could just as likely be neutrally buoyant such that liquid
could be dispensed from the bottle when it is oriented in a
horizontal position is just as plausible as the examiner’s
theory of operation.
In light of the above, the standing § 102 rejection of
the appealed claims as being anticipated by DeQuillfeldt
cannot be sustained.
Remand to the Examiner
U.S. Patent No. 4,741,448 to Alley has been made of
record in the present application. This patent teaches “[a]
buoyant ball . . . provided within a water bottle to provide a
momentary gate for restricting water flow out of the bottle as
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007