Ex parte PAZIK - Page 5




              Appeal No. 95-4002                                                                                         
              Application 08/081,858                                                                                     


                     The particular mounting orientation [of the tank] . . . would have been an                          
                     obvious matter of engineering design choice determined by the space                                 
                     available in the particular vehicle.  Attention is directed to Durrett, Jr. et.                     
                     al., fig. 3 which discloses a pocket orientation that is transverse  to the                         
                     long axis of the tank.  To have employed such teaching with a single                                
                     pocket would have been obvoius [sic, obvious] to one of ordinary skill in                           
                     the art in light of the cost savings to be realized.  It is widely accepted in                      
                     the field to employ baffles that restrict the flow of fluids.  These baffles are                    
                     placed across the path of the fluid flow. [answer, page 4]                                          
                     We cannot accept this position.  First, it is not clear that providing the Figure 3                 
              embodiment of Durrett with only a single pocket would result in any significant cost                       
              savings.  Second, the examiner has not explained, and it is not clear to us, why the                       
              skilled artisan would carry out such a modification of the Figure 3 embodiment in a way                    
              that would necessarily result in the tank of claim 8.  In this regard, Durrett’s Figure 1                  
              embodiment is a “single pocket” tank of the type generally proposed by the examiner,                       
              yet it is clearly does not correspond to that which is called for in claim 8.  Also, when                  
              only two modular containers of Durrett’s Figure 5 embodiment are employed, a “single                       
              pocket” container results, however, it too clearly does not correspond to that which is                    
              called for in claim 8.  The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified in a                  
              manner which would result in the claimed subject does not make such a modification                         
              obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so.  In re Gordon, 733                     
              F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  In the present instance, we fail                     
              to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in Durrett which would have led one                      
              of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fuel tank thereof in a manner which would result                
                                                           5                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007