Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 30). Such a disclosure is sufficient to support the Examiner’s determination
2 that Frutin I teaches “a liquid having a sparingly soluble effervescence
3 inducing gas dissolved therein” as required by claim 1. Farr has not directed
4 us to evidence showing to the contrary.
5 The Examiner does not rely upon Denton for showing an effervescent
6 beverage but for a hands free valve. Nonetheless, we note that Denton is
7 said to be useful as a valve for pressurized bottles.
8 Farr argues that the valve of Denton “wouldn’t be expected to
9 withstand the pressure of 2.5 bar in particular because bracing member 47
10 would more than likely blow out of the housing 43 since the member is only
11 held in place by friction (please see column 4, lines 1-4 and lines 25-31).”
12 (Br. at 17). Farr has not directed us to evidence supporting this
13 characterization of the Denton valve and thus we do not accept it as
14 accurate. Moreover, we note that Denton states that the valve can be used in
15 a pressurized bottle. Farr has not shown or even argued that it would have
16 been beyond the skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art to allow
17 for proper valve placement for the pressure selected.
18 We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, and under 35
19 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Denton.
20 Hoffman, Denton, and Bergman
21 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
22 over Hoffman in view of Denton as applied to claims 1, 4, 9, and 10 and
23 further in view of Bergman. (Answer at 8-9).
24 Claim 11 requires an actuator means which “includes a button
25 mounted in the outlet portion, the button being movable between a valve-
22
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013