Ex Parte GAUBERT - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2005-2705                                                               Παγε 2                
              Application No. 08/978,055                                                                               


                     The appellant's invention relates to a method of inerting a vat containing a                      
              consumable liquid such as wine, wherein the inerting gas is injected into the vat below                  
              the upper wall of the vat and above but close to the free surface of the liquid                          
              (specification, page 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to              
              the appellant's brief.                                                                                   


                                               The Applied Prior Art                                                   
                     The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting                
              the appealed claims:                                                                                     
              Lindberg     3,814,147   Jun. 4, 1974                                                                    
              Spencer     WO 93/20181  Oct. 14, 1993                                                                   
              Lewis, “Blanketing in Storage Tanks,” The Australian Grapegrower & Winemaker, pp.                        
              96-99, April 1990.                                                                                       
              Westrick, “Managing Oxygen in White Wine Production,” Practical Winery & Vinyard,                        
              pp. 49-52, May/June 1996.                                                                                
              Allen, “Gas Diffuser Proves Beneficial,” Winepress, p. 14, June 1996.                                    

                                                   The Rejections                                                      
                     The following rejections are before us for review.                                                
                     Claims 1-3, 12, 13 and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                        
              unpatentable over Lewis or Westrick in view of Lindberg.                                                 
                     Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                        
              over Lewis or Westrick in view of Lindberg and further in view of Spencer.                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007