Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
functions claimed by the appellants, we agree with the
examiner and therefore will affirm his rejection of claim 108.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra.
The structural limitations recited in appellants' claim 108
are all found in the Kettlewell reference, upon which the
examiner relied. Appellants' only argument is that there has
been no showing as to where Kettlewell teaches "[a]n above-
ground storage tank for storing gasoline," "an inner tank for
storing gasoline" and "the insulating material being
sufficient to at least meet a two-hour fire wall rating"
(brief, page 16).
We are not persuaded by this argument. In our view the
functional limitations set forth in appellants' claim 108
would have been inherent in the Kettlewell tank structure.
The storage tank of Kettlewell is used for storing liquids and
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007