Appeal No. 2006-0912
Application No. 10/081,575
[I]t would have been obvious to modify...Guardia and
select a carbonated pulp-free orange juice since Atkins
et al teach [that] a pulp free orange juice provides an
exceptionally good quality, good storage ability, and a
pleasantly flavored bottled carbonated orange juice.
The appellants only argue that the prior art references do not
teach or suggest the claimed functionally defined dispenser. See
the Brief, pages 15-16. Thus, for the reasons set forth above
and the Answer, we concur with the examiner that the prior art
references would have rendered the subject matter defined by the
claims 6, 8 and 9 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and above, we affirm
the examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal under
Sections 102(b) and 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007