Ex Parte Farr et al - Page 11


                  Appeal 2007-2488                                                                                         
                  Application 10/081,483                                                                                   

             1                    to cause or enable release of liquid directly into the                                   
             2                    user’s mouth.                                                                            
             3                                                                                                             
             4            11. A beverage product according to claim 10, wherein                                            
             5                    the actuator means includes a button mounted in the                                      
             6                    outlet portion, the button being movable between a                                       
             7                    valve-closed position and a valve-open position to                                       
             8                    which it can be moved by a biting action applied to the                                  
             9                    outlet portion.                                                                          
           10                                                                                                              
           11        38.  The Examiner found, and Farr does not contest, that Bergman                                      
           12            teaches a bite valve for feeding water to an animal that is operated by                           
           13            biting on a sleeve button such that the amount of beverage dispensed                              
           14            is dependent upon the amount of biting pressure.  (Answer at 8-9).                                
           15        39. As noted in its Brief, Farr has not submitted any evidence “pursuant to                           
           16            [37 C.F.R.] §§ 1.130, 1.131, and/or 1.132.”  (Br. at 26).                                         
           17        III. Issues                                                                                           
           18            The issues are:                                                                                   
           19            (1)   Whether Farr has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting                                 
           20     claims 1-3, 5-8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                             
           21     Frutin I “as evidenced by Rudick”                                                                        
           22            (2) Whether Farr has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting                                   
           23     claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frutin                              
           24     I and Rudick as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 15, and 16 and further in view of                           
           25     Kohler.                                                                                                  
           26            (3) Whether Farr has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting                                   


                                                            11                                                             

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013