Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 closed position and a valve-open position to which it can be moved by a
2 biting action applied to the outlet portion.”
3 The Examiner found, and Farr does not contest, that Bergman teaches
4 a bite valve for feeding water to an animal that is operated by biting on a
5 button such that the amount of beverage dispensed is dependent upon the
6 amount of biting pressure. (Answer at 8-9).
7 The Examiner reasoned that one skilled in the art would have had
8 reason to use such a button type valve release which would be equivalent to
9 the type of valve taught in Denton which can also be operated by the mouth.
10 (Answer at 8-9). One skilled in the art would thus use the button valve of
11 Bergman for the same reason one would use the valve of Denton, i.e., ease
12 of consumption of the beverage.
13 Farr notes that the valves used in the dispensers of Bergman are not
14 said to be under pressure. However, Bergman is not relied upon by the
15 Examiner to show pressurization but rather for its teaching of a hands free
16 valve for dispending a beverage. Combining the beverage dispenser of
17 Hoffman with the hands free valves of either Denton or Bergman to arrive at
18 the beverage product claimed appears to be nothing more than combining
19 known elements for their known purposes. Farr has not directed us to
20 evidence showing that it has obtained any unpredictable result or that using
21 the valves of Bergman in a pressurized dispenser as shown in Hoffman was
22 beyond the technical grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art.
23 Farr argues that the three references the Examiner combines relate to
24 different subject matter. Farr characterizes Hoffman as disclosing a
25 halitosis alleviating beverage, Denton as disclosing the use of its valve for
23
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013