Appeal No. 95-4002
Application 08/081,858
Appellant’s invention pertains to an integrally molded plastic fuel tank with an
internal baffle. Independent claim 8, a copy of which is appended to appellant’s brief,
is representative of the claimed subject matter.2
The single reference of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness is:
Durrett et al. (Durett) 3,595,422 July 27, 1991
Claims 8-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Durrett.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 28, mailed
August 13, 1997).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the brief (Paper No. 23,
filed February 1, 1995) and the reply brief (Paper No. 25, filed June 5, 1995).
Appellant also relies on affidavits under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 filed May 27, 1993 and
March 3, 1994, in support of his position that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious.
OPINION
In rejecting claims 8-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial
2In independent claim 22, seventh to the last line, “the pocket” lacks a clear
antecedent and should apparently be --the baffle--. Appellant may wish to correct this
error in the event of further prosecution.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007