Ex Parte GULATI - Page 2




          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.                                
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007