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