Appeal No. 95-4002
Application 08/081,858
in the subject matter of claim 8.
Therefore, we will not sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claim 8, or claims
9-16 and 21 which depend either directly or indirectly therefrom.
Independent claims 17 and 22 are broader than independent claim 8 in the
specifics of the baffle. Claims 17 and 22, however, recite a fuel sender means for
sensing and reporting the level of fuel in the tank, and specify a particular location for
the float of the sender means relative to the baffle. In particular, claim 17 requires that
the float of the sender means “is spaced from one side of the baffle by a distance which
is approximately equal to or less than the width of the float as it moves vertically up and
down.” Claim 22 calls for the float to be mounted on a pivot arm of the sender means
and for the sender means to be located such that “the float [is] spaced from the one
side wall [of the baffle] by a distance which is substantially less that the length of the
support arm.”
The examiner contends, and appellant has not disputed, that “[t]he employment
of fluid level sensors that operate via a pivoted arm mounted float . . . are standard
construction in fuel tanks and would have been obvious in the construction of the
above set forth device [of Durrett]” (answer, pages 4-5). As for the particular location of
the fuel sensor, the examiner further contends:
The placing of the float adjacent the baffle wall in order to lessen the float
movement due to fluid movement (sloshing) would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art motivated by the desire to have accurate
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007