Appeal No. 2002-1874 Page 2
Application No. 09/553,302
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for storing liquid. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 5,
which appears in the appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Marshall 1,856,492 May 3, 1932
Mair 3,527,379 Sep. 8, 1970
Claims 5, 6 and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mair in view of Marshall.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
1We note that the preamble of claim 16 states that it depends from claim 16, and the preamble of
claim 17 that it depends from claim 17. It would appear that claim 16 should depend from claim 15, and
claim 17 from claim 16. These errors should be corrected.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007