Appeal No. 98-3013
Application No. 08/556,211
of at least 5 cm/sec., particularly since Holinger discloses
the pressure of the feed water must be about 15 pounds higher
than the pressure of the gas within the container (page 2,
left column, lines 51
et seq.), and Cornelius discloses that a jet of pressurized
water is discharged through the nozzle in order to create
turbulence (column 1, lines 46 et seq.). In any event, we are
persuaded that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to determine the optimum speed of the water
droplets which maximizes the mass transfer of gaseous carbonic
acid into the water droplets. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276,
205 USPQ at 219. Appellant has proffered no objective
evidence that the claimed droplet speed would have been
nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art or produces
unexpected results relative to droplet speeds conventionally
used in apparatus for making carbonated water.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007