Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 Farr argues that “[t]he ‘605 reference is designed to release fluid into
2 a liquid.” (Br. at 15). To the extent Farr is arguing that a gas cannot be
3 contained in the device (widget) of Frutin II, we do not agree. Frutin II
4 discusses, e.g., that the “fluid” released into the container from the device
5 may be a liquid, a gas, or a liquid/gas mixture. (Frutin II at 14; FF 27).
6 We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35
7 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frutin I as applied to claims 1, 3,
8 5-8, 15, and 16 and further in view of Frutin II.
9 E. Hoffman and Denton
10 Claims 1, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
11 unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Denton. (Answer at 7-8).
12 As noted by the Examiner, Hoffman teaches a container for a
13 beverage where the beverage is a liquid, such as coffee, cola, or root beer,
14 containing pressurized oxygen and where the beverage is stored under a
15 pressure of 2.0 to 6.0 atmospheres to increase the solubility of the dissolved
16 oxygen. (Hoffman at 2:31-42 and 4:60-67; FF 30).
17 The contents of the container may be released by spraying which, as
18 the Examiner observes, “would involve a valve structure”. (Hoffman at
19 2:20-30 and Answer at 7; FF 31).
20 The Examiner acknowledged that “Hoffman is silent in teaching the
21 particular temperature at which the beverage is stored [e.g., 5-15º C] and
22 that the valve structure is one which is designed to be opened via the
23 consumer’s mouth as recited in claim 1…” (Answer at 7).
24 The Examiner relies upon Denton as teaching a fluid delivery valve
25 which is designed to be used in fluid containing devices such as drinking
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013