Appeal No. 2007-0379 Page 15
Application No. 10/045,301
examiner relies on the combination of Boulter and Voznick as set forth above.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 9), [i]instant claims add further
lmitatations not taught by Boulter in view of Voznic, but taught by Blades . . .” the
examiner then explains that Blades teaches a host system that uses reverse
osmosis reject water, inlet water and a cooling source which as an evaporator.
According to the examiner (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 9-10), “[i]t would
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the
teachings of Blades in the teaching of Boulter in view of Voznick for energy
recovery as taught by Blades in the ‘Boulter in view of Voznick’ system.”
On reflection, it is our opinion that Blades fails to make up for the
deficiencies in the combination of Boulter and Voznic. Accordingly, we reverse
the rejection of claims 6, 7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boulter, Voznick, and Blades.
The combination of Boulter, Voznick and Credle:
Claims 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boulter, Voznick, and Credle. The
examiner relies on the combination of Boulter and Voznick as set forth above.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 9), “[i]nstant claims add further
limitations, which Boulter in view of Voznick does not teach but taught by Credle
as follows . . .” the examiner then explains that Credle teaches a beverage
dispenser that includes a cooling source, a carbonator, and a supply of syrups
and flavors.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013