Appeal No. 2006-0104 6
Application No. 10/055,440
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on AKI. The examiner’s statement of this rejection is found on pages 3-4 of the answer.
For the reasons set forth on pages 8-11 of the brief and pages 2-8 of the reply brief, we
agree with appellants that AKI does not anticipate the subterranean tank assembly of
claim 1 on appeal. Like appellants, we fail to find any teaching or showing in AKI of a
riser having a plurality of axially spaced continuous and circumscribing ribs wherein
each of the ribs includes
a pair of substantially horizontal flanges radially oriented in a plane
transverse to the longitudinal axis of the riser and connecting said ribs to
said riser wall, said flanges each being complementally sized and
configured relative to said rim whereby said a circumscribing cut through
one of said ribs or said riser wall adjacent said flange will reduce the
longitudinal length of said riser and whereby the remaining, normally
bottommost flange of the riser may be coupled to the rim in sealing
engagement.
Nor do we find that AKI provides a teaching or showing of a vessel and riser
combination like that set forth in claim 1 on appeal. More particularly, the examiner has
made no effort to explain where in AKI there is a vessel with at least one portal
projecting upwardly from the vessel wall and presenting an opening for gaining access
to the vessel chamber, wherein the portal includes “a rim having a substantially
horizontal circumferentially extending closure surface in surrounding relationship to the
opening and an inwardly tapering receiving surface” and a riser including a normally
bottommost connector portion adapted for coupling to the vessel rim, wherein the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007