Appeal No. 98-2446
Application 08/593,070
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 3, 8 and 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Seitz or Collier, we must agree with
appellant (brief, pages 4-6) that both Seitz and Collier fail
to show, disclose or teach a cover for a “standard open head
container” as in appellant’s claim 1 on appeal, wherein the
cover includes,
inter alia, a housing like that set forth in independent claim
1 with
“a sealing portion of said housing that is sealably
engageable to the second end of the elongated side
walls [of the standard open head container], such
that the housing passage is removably connected
to the container body cavity.”
Both Seitz and Collier disclose a ring/coaming or housing
(12 of Seitz, 34 of Collier) that is welded to the body of the
rail car therein and is clearly not removably connected
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007