Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frutin I in view of Kohler as applied to
3 claims 12 and 13 and further in view of Berg.
4 D. Frutin I and Frutin II
5 Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
6 unpatentable over Frutin I as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 15, and 16 and
7 further in view of Frutin II. (Answer at 6-7).
8 Claim 17 recites that “the sparingly soluble effervescent inducing gas”
9 of claim 1 “is contained in a widget that releases its contents into the
10 container when the valve is opened” and claim 18 states that the widget may
11 also contain a concentrated flavour that is released into the container when
12 the valve is open.
13 As we understand it, a widget, as used in the present claims, is a
14 device within the container that releases gas into the beverage. (See FF 25).
15 As the Examiner notes, Frutin I teaches that the beverage container
16 may be fitted with a device for injecting flavored liquid into the container
17 and directs the reader to the devices of Frutin II. As further noted by the
18 Examiner, Frutin II teaches a device for releasing gas or a mixture of a gas
19 and flavored liquid into a container upon releasing the pressure within the
20 container. (Answer at 6; FF 27). Such a device meets the requirements of a
21 “widget” as that term is used in claims 17 and 18.
22 The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to include a
23 widget such as the one taught in Frutin II within the beverage container of
24 Frutin I since Frutin I specifically suggests using such a device. We agree.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013