Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
However, it is clear to us that what the examiner refers
to as an "outer shell #42" in Lindquist, is merely a form
assembly to support the concrete outer shell 8 as it is poured
and while it is curing. Form assembly 42 is ultimately
removed, and becomes no portion of the above ground storage
tank 2. Thus, Lindquist does not show each and every feature
of appellants' claimed invention, namely an above-ground
storage tank comprised of three parts or component layers,
i.e., "an inner tank," "an outer shell" and "an insulating
layer" therebetween. In this regard, we must point out that
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See RCA Corp. V. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 93, 107, 108, 111, 112, 119, 127, 133 and
134 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by
Lindquist.
We will now look to the examiner's rejection of claims
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007