Appeal No. 95-4002
Application 08/081,858
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the
prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at
the claimed invention. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073-74, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-99
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Independent claim 8 calls for a vehicle tank integrally molded out of a plastic
material having a length along a longitudinal axis and a width along a transverse axis,
with the length of the tank being greater than the width. The tank is provided with
means for mounting the tank such that the longitudinal axis is disposed transverse to a
forward direction of motion of the vehicle. Further, the tank is provided with a single,
integrally molded pocket extending between the top and bottom walls of the tank, the
pocket being at right angles to the longitudinal axis and being positioned approximately
midway between the left and right sides of the tank to form a transverse baffle to
minimize sloshing of fuel between the left and right side walls of the tank during turns of
the vehicle. Claim 8 additionally requires that the hollow interior of the tank is
otherwise unobstructed by any other baffle forming walls except for the walls forming
the single, integrally molded pocket.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007