Appeal 2006-2384
Application 10/003,037
the edge of the C4 membrane either inherently takes place or is suggested.
C4 describes a perimeter anchor system in which the cover is buried within a
trench or battened to a ringwall (FF 5). There is no depiction or discussion
of venting (FF 5). There is simply little evidentiary support for the
proposition that battening does not, or is not intended to, result in a fluid
tight seal.
The Examiner further contends that openings 66 in membrane 10 of
Wilson vent gas as claimed. However, the cover 10 of Wilson is fluid tight
around the outer edge of the membrane as the edge is “attached in fluid-tight
relationship to the upper part of the container 12” (FF 8). Therefore, Wilson
does not teach or suggest positioning the covering system to allow venting
“around the outer edge of the first membrane” as claimed.
III. CONCLUSION
The evidence as applied by the Examiner does not support either the
rejection over the admitted prior art in view of Gerber or the rejection over
Wilson in view of Morgan. Moreover, C1 as applied by the Examiner does
not remedy the deficiencies of the rejection over Wilson in view of Morgan.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-15, 28, 29,
and 32 is reversed.
REVERSED
clj
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013