Appeal No. 2002-1192
Application 09/256,383
brief, there is nothing in Lalvani which teaches or suggests the
limitation in independent claim 17 of “a cover sealingly attached
to each of said connected vertical and horizontal, elongated
supports which form said outer periphery of each of said vertical
truss structures for containing said liquids within said tank.”
The examiner’s assertion of inherency in this regard is wholly
unavailing, since Lalvani is silent as to how any membrane or
plates might be secured to a truss structure like that shown in
the patent, and has nothing to do with tanks for containing
liquids.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lalvani will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 4, 6,
10, 15 and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lalvani in view of Lawman. As noted above,
Lalvani discloses a space frame building system based on classes
of non-regular polyhedral nodes connected by appropriate struts
(e.g., 13 of Fig. 2). Lawman addresses construction of storage
tanks intended for the storage of liquids and, more particularly,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007