Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
reason why the inner tank 40 and outer shell 12 in Johnston's
cryogenic liquid storage tank would have been merely the
"substantially six inches" required in appellants' claim 110
on appeal. If anything, it would seem that the multiple
spaces 13, 36, and 75 between the inner tank 40 and outer
shell 12 in Johnston would be individually, as well as
collectively, significantly more than the "substantially six
inches" claimed by appellants. Thus, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 110 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnston.
We now look at the examiner's rejection of claim 108
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by
Kettlewell. As previously discussed, Kettlewell shows a three
layered tank which uses expanded mica as the insulating
material disposed within and filling the space between the
inner tank and the outer shell. The examiner indicated that
the claim recitations "for storing a flammable liquid," "for
storing a liquid" and "for storing gasoline" are directed to
intended use and "thus not awarded patentable weight" (answer,
page 4). Since the prior art is capable of performing the
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007