Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 dispensing fluids to “those typically required to wear protective suits” and
2 Bergman at disclosing a valve of “the type found in a bird, dog, or gerbil
3 cage.” (Br. at 19, original emphasis). First we note that Farr’s
4 characterization does not take into account the full scope of each references.
5 For instance, Hoffman discloses a variety of beverages having oxygen
6 dissolved therein (FF 30) and Denton discusses that the valve it discloses is
7 beneficial for providing beverages in other applications where it is useful to
8 have a hand or both hands free, e.g., riding a bicycle or driving a car.
9 (Denton at 1:21-30). Bergman does not discuss or otherwise limit the
10 usefulness of the valves it discloses to bird, dog, or gerbil cages.
11 All of the references the Examiner relies upon are directed to
12 beverage dispensing. One skilled in the art would have had reason to look to
13 the prior art discussing beverage dispensing when looking to improve or
14 modify the beverage dispenser of Hoffman. Even if it could be said that the
15 reference are in different technical fields, one skilled in the art would
16 recognize that the valves used in the beverage dispensers of Denton and
17 Bergman could be used to improve the beverage dispensers of Hoffman in
18 ways similar to those described, e.g., to allow for hands free use.
19 We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
20 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Denton as applied to
21 claims 1, 4, 9, and 10 and further in view of Bergman.
22
24
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013