Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
adjacent to an inlet cover which obturates the conduit leading
to a petroleum storage tank. In the final analysis, the only
way the examiner could have arrived at his conclusion of
obviousness with regard to the combination claims 1 through 9
is through hindsight based on appellant’s teachings. Hindsight
analysis, however, is clearly improper. In re Deminski, 796
F.2d 436, 443, 230 USPQ 313, 316 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As a
consequence, we also cannot sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 1 through 9.
We will, however, sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claim 22. Unlike claim 1, claim 22 is not directed to the
combination of the content identifier with other elements such
as the removable inlet cover; nor does claim 22 require the
primary mass to actually be placed or attached adjacent to the
inlet cover. Instead, claim 22, merely requires the primary
mass to be “attachable” (emphasis added) to the inlet cover as
discussed supra. When this language is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-
22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), it merely requires
the primary mass to be capable of being attached adjacent to
the inlet cover. As such, this claim limitation does not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007