Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
"substantially six inch" range claimed by appellants, or would
have at the very least have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art based on the disclosure at page 1,
col. 2, lines 17-19, of Kettlewell concerning desired sizing
of the installation therein, we also note that a change in
dimension is generally considered to be a modification that
would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
where the disclosure is silent as to the significance of the
particular dimension claimed (i.e., substantially six inches).
Therefore, we will affirm the examiner's rejection of claim
110 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kettlewell.
We now look at the examiner's rejection of claims 118 and
132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kettelewell. As with claim 108 on appeal, each of claims 118
and 132 on appeal recite a three layer storage tank and the
specific limitation that there be fire resistant insulating
material disposed within and filling the space between the
inner tank and the outer shell, the space having sufficient
thickness to enable the storage tank to at least meet a two
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007