Appeal No. 1997-2567
Application 08/390,029
FR ‘536 does not disclose a nozzle having at least one
twisted blade. Appellants, however, do not challenge the
examiner’s argument (answer, page 4) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the
FR ‘536 apparatus the twisted blades of Reetz (col. 2, lines
46-48; figure 1) for production of a marbleized product.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to include Warren’s check
valve (col. 2, lines 43-46; figure 1) in the apparatus
obtained by combining FR ‘536 and Reetz (brief, pages 12-15;
reply brief, pages 3-5). Appellants do not explain, however,
and it is not apparent, how the FR ‘536 pouring valves (2)
(i.e., cylinders containing a piston; figure 1) can create the
vacuum needed to suck the candy masses into the pouring valves
(page 4) if the outlet of the pouring valves is open to the
atmosphere. Although a check valve is not shown in the
FR ‘536 drawings or described in that reference, it would have
been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that
a check valve at the outlet of the pouring valves would be
needed so that the upward movement of the piston in the valves
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007