Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 bottles. The valve is designed to be opened by a user’s mouth and gives the
2 advantage of allowing for one hand or hands-free use. (Denton at 1:25-43;
3 FF 33). The valve is said to be useful in a pressurized bottle. (Denton at
4 2:24-26; FF 34) and to allow for a high flow rate. (Denton at 2:17-20; FF
5 35).
6 The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to use the
7 Denton valve in the Hoffman beverage dispenser for the reason that it is
8 “easy to use, inexpensive, does not leak, and can be used in combination
9 with a variety of pressurized containers” and offers the advantage of hands
10 free use (Answer at 7-8).
11 As to the limitation that “the beverage is held under a gaseous
12 pressure in the headspace of at least 2.5 atmospheres gauge at 5 to 15ºC,”
13 the Examiner noted that the claimed pressure of at least 2.5 atmosphere is
14 taught. The Examiner reasons that root beer, for example, which is a
15 beverage discussed in Hoffman, is normally chilled and would be at the
16 temperature recited.
17 Farr notes that the beverages found in the dispensers of Hoffman are
18 used for “solutions in remediating mouth odor.” (Br. at 17). However, such
19 solutions, e.g., water, coffee, and root beer, are beverages within the scope
20 of the present claims. The fact that the Hofffman beverages are said to
21 achieve a result not contemplated by Farr is not relevant to the issues before
22 us.
23 Farr argues that neither Hoffman nor Denton is directed to producing
24 an effervescent beverage. We disagree. The Examiner has pointed out that
25 Hoffman, like Farr, discloses dissolving oxygen in the beverage. (FFs 3 and
21
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013