Appeal No. 98-3013
Application No. 08/556,211
the examiner that it would have obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to slightly modify the receptacle of Holinger
so that a minor portion of the carbonated water exits through
plate 26, especially since Mueller discloses that it was known
in the art to allow all the carbonated water to exit through
the bottom of a bowl-like receptacle 95. Appellant has
presented no objective evidence of nonobviousness to rebut the
prima facie obviousness of employing the claimed perforated
bowl, e.g., evidence which establishes that the use of a
perforated bowl within the scope of the appealed claims
produces unexpected results viz-à-vis the receptacle of either
Holinger or Cornelius. Our same reasoning applies to
separately argued apparatus claim 3 and separately argued
method claim 8 which require only outlet perforations in the
bottom wall of the receptacle.
Apparatus claims 13 and 16 recite the further requirement
that the speed of the water droplets is at least 5 cm/sec.
However, we agree with the examiner that, although Cornelius
and Holinger are silent with respect to the speed of the
atomized water droplets, it is reasonable to conclude that the
atomized droplets of Cornelius and Holinger achieve a velocity
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007