Appeal 2007-0616
Application 10/733,689
II. PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies upon the following references:
Plavnik US 6,684,823 B1 Feb. 3, 2004
Ruegg US 2004/0112306 A1 Jun. 17, 2004
III. REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1) Claims 13 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Ruegg;
2) Claims 19 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the disclosure of Ruegg;
3) Claims 13 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Plavnik and Ruegg; and
4) Claims 13 through 16 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 5 through 9
of copending application 10/718,855.
IV. ISSUES
1) Would Ruegg alone, or in combination with Plavnik, have taught or
suggested the limitation “introducing a pressurized gas to the conduit
effective to substantially resist upstream infiltration of a contaminant from
an interior of the vessel” recited in claims 13 through 15 and 17?
2) Would Ruegg alone, or in combination with Plavnik, have taught or
suggested the specific pressurized gas feeding locations recited in claims 16
and 19?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013