Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 a dip tube and vapor tap in allowing for more of the contents of the aerosol
2 container described at, e.g., Fig. 12 and 13 of Frutin I, to be expelled.
3 We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35
4 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Frutin I and Kohler.
5 C. Frutin I, Kohler, and Berg
6 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
7 over Frutin I in view of Kohler as applied to claims 12 and 13 and further in
8 view of Berg. (Answer at 5-6).
9 Claims 14 recites the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13 and further
10 requires that “the quantity of gas expelled from the container when the valve
11 is opened is greater than 0.5 cubic centimeters per l cubic centimeter of
12 liquid beverage when measured at atmospheric pressure and 20º C.”
13 The Examiner acknowledges that Frutin I “is silent in teaching any
14 particular amount of gas discharged with the liquid.” The Examiner notes
15 however that Frutin I teaches that the amount of gas expelled when liquid is
16 expelled (i.e., the density of the dispensed beverage) is dependent upon the
17 size of the headspace and the pressure of the gas in the headspace. (Answer
18 at 5, FF 14).
19 The Examiner found that Berg shows conventional effervescent
20 beverages having a 1:1 ratio of gas per volume of liquid and reasoned that
21 one skilled in the art therefore would have sufficient reason to use such a
22 ratio for beverage dispensing. Farr does not disagree with the Examiner’s
23 finding or otherwise argue that it would not have been obvious to use the
24 claimed ratio in dispensing the beverage of Frutin I. Farr has not argued that
25 the ratio of claim 14 gives anything other than a predictable result.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013