Appeal No. 98-3013
Application No. 08/556,211
(d) claim 16 as in (a) above in further view of Gee.
We have carefully reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we concur with the examiner that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view
of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Like appellant, Cornelius and Holinger disclose an apparatus
for manufacturing carbonated water comprising a nozzle for
supplying an atomized spray of water and a bowl-like
receptacle for receiving the atomized water in conjunction
with carbonic acid gas. The receptacle of Cornelius is non-
apertured whereas the receptacle of Holinger has openings in
its sidewalls for allowing the prepared carbonated water to
exit to the bottom of the storage container. While, as urged
by appellant, Cornelius and Holinger are silent regarding the
diameter of the atomized water droplets, we agree with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably expect that the nozzles of Cornelius and Holinger
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007