Appeal No. 2005-2705 Παγε 3
Application No. 08/978,055
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lewis or Westrick in view of Allen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief and
reply brief (filed December 3, 2004) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Lewis discloses a method of inerting a wine storage tank by injecting an inerting
gas, such as carbon dioxide, by lowering a gas diffuser to the liquid surface. Westrick
discloses a method of inerting a wine tank by layering argon onto the surface of the tank
by lowering a gassing bell slowly to the bottom of the tank, filling the tank and then
gassing any head space left by applying argon slowly to the surface of the wine
(presumably by lowering a gassing bell to the surface of the wine). Neither of Lewis and
Westrick discloses any of the details of the venting or purging of gas from the wine tank
or vat and thus neither fully meets the limitations of appellant's independent claims 1
and 21. In particular, neither reference meets the limitations directed to the single vat
opening and a tubular connector fitted into the opening, with the connector having two
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007