Appeal No. 1997-2567
Application 08/390,029
could suck the candy masses into the cylinders of the pouring
valves. Thus, the applied references would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of a check
valve in the FR ‘536 pouring valves.
Appellants argue that even if it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a check valve
in the apparatus resulting from the combination of FR ‘536 and
Reetz, it would not have been obvious to such a person to
place the check valve between the imbibing openings and the
twisted blade (brief, page 14). The examiner has set forth a
very good reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have placed the check valve before the twisted blade, i.e., so
that flow through the check valve would not damage the
marbleizing produced by the twisted blade (answer, page 8).
Appellants argue that Warren places his check valve in the
nozzle (brief, page 14), but do not explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art, when considering the applied
references in combination, would not have placed the check
valve upstream of the twisted blade to obtain the benefit of
doing so set forth by the examiner. Consequently, appellants’
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007