Appeal No. 2002-1192 Application 09/256,383 temperatures at near atmospheric pressures in areas susceptible to earthquake activity, and to a process for manufacturing such a tank. Independent claims 17, 19 and 20 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found in the Appendix to appellant’s brief. The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are: Lawman et al. (Lawman) 2,331,483 Oct. 12, 1943 Jackson 2,337,049 Dec. 21, 1943 Lalvani 5,505,035 Apr. 9, 1996 Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lalvani. Claims 4, 6, 10, 15 and 17 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lalvani in view of Lawman.1 1 As has been repeatedly pointed out by appellant (e.g., in Paper No. 10 and the brief on appeal, Paper No. 13, page 9), the examiner has not expressly treated claim 4 on the merits by including that claim in a stated rejection. However, as appellant has done in the brief (page 9), and given the rejections of dependent claims 5 and 6, we assume for purposes of this appeal that claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lalvani in view of Lawman. 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007