Appeal No. 1998-2242
Application No. 08/430,937
Claims 3 through 6, 10 and 12 through 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by DiNicolantonio.
The examiner states this rejection thusly:
DiNicolantonio et al. who teach a method (see Fig. 3
paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4) for providing
support for a gas-liquid mass transfer contact tray
wherein the tray comprises at least one or more tray
panels (40,42), said method comprising a step of
providing for each of said tray panels with a
plurality of equidistantly spaced stiffeners (50)
wherein the stiffeners (50) in each tray panel are
located perpendicular to and connected to the bottom
surface of the tray panel, and wherein the
stiffeners in each tray panel are further positioned
to define a continuous and orthogonal grill under
each said tray panel or the tray. It is further
clear that the tray of DiNicolantonio et al. is
perforated and circular, comprises a sealing ring
(26) and does not have a support beam. [examiner’s
answer, page 6].
Claims 3 through 6, 10 and 12 through 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over DiNicolantonio or
Thrift taken with admitted prior art found on pages 5 and 6
and in Figure 2 of appellant’s specification. The examiner’s
factual findings with respect to DiNicolantonio have been
reproduced above. With respect to Thrift, the examiner states
that Thrift teaches a method comprising a step of providing
for each tray panel of a perforated tray of a gas liquid mass
transfer column a plurality of stiffeners which reinforce the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007