Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 Kohler
2 17. Claims 12 and 133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
3 unpatentable over Frutin I and Rudick as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8,
4 15, and 16 and further in view of Kohler. (Answer at 4-5).
5 18. Claim 12 is representative and reads as follows:
6 A beverage product according to claim 1 wherein the
7 container has a dip tube that is attached to the valve inside the
8 container and extends into the interior of the container so that
9 the end of the dip tube is below the level of the beverage when
10 the container is upright so that the effervescent fluid is urged
11 to pass through the dip tube when the valve is open by the
12 pressure of the gas in the headspace.
13
14 19. The Examiner found, and Farr does not contest, that Kohler teaches
15 an aerosol spray system having a dip tube and a vapor hole that will
16 enable gas from the headspace to enter the dip tube such that “one can
17 maintain a constant pressure to urge the material out of the container,
18 even as the level reaches the bottom of the container”. (Answer at 4-
19 5).
20 Berg
21 20. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
22 over Frutin I in view of Kohler as applied to claims 12 and 13 and
23 further in view of Berg, Jr. (Berg) (Answer at 5-6).
24 21. Claim 14 (and claim 13 from which it depends) are as follows:
25 13. A beverage product according to claims 12, wherein
26 the dip tube has an aperture which communicates between the
27 headspace above the beverage in the container and the interior
3 The claims are argued together as to this rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013