Appeal No. 2006-0912
Application No. 10/081,575
713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Rather,
it only requires that the claims on appeal "read on" something
disclosed in the prior art reference. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d at 772, 218 USPQ at 789.
With the above precedents in mind, we turn to the examiner’s
Section 102(b) rejections. We observe that the examiner has
found, and the appellants have not disputed, that Ash and Guardia
individually teach a pressurized beverage product corresponding
to the one recited in claim 1, except for a dispenser defined by
the claimed functional limitation. Compare the Answer in its
entirety with the Brief in its entirety. Indeed, the appellants
assert (e.g., the Brief, pages 12 and 14) that:
There is no teaching whatsoever in the ‘841 reference
[Ash] that suggests that the method of dispensing is
geared towards dispensing and effervescent beverage
directly into the mouth of a consumer as claimed in the
present invention. The ‘841 reference [Ash] discloses
a dispensing apparatus that is similar to a faucet in a
conventional household sink, all of which is attached
to a cask or barrel. Taking a drink directly from a
household sink would be equivalent to taking a drink
directly from the apparatus described in the ‘841
reference [Ash].
...
...Clearly, there is no teaching whatsoever in the ‘254
reference [Guardia] that even remotely suggests a
pressurized beverage product that is suitable to be
dispensed as an effervescent beverage3 into the mouth
3 According to page 4 of the specification, “[e]ffervescent beverage, as used herein, is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007