Appeal No. 95-4002
Application 08/081,858
means as an obvious matter of choice and design is also not well taken. In contrast to
the situation in Kuhle, here the location of the fuel sender such that the float is situated
closely adjacent the baffle is disclosed in appellant’s specification as solving a problem
3
of accurately sensing fuel level within the tank. Thus, the claimed fuel sender
locations cannot be dismissed as obvious matters of design choice without supporting
evidence.
In light of the foregoing, we also will not sustain the standing § 103 rejection of
claims 17 and 22, or claims 18-20 which depend either directly or indirectly from claim
17.
3See page 10 of the specification of the present application, wherein it is stated:
“Float 60 is desirably located closely adjacent one side wall of the pocket 40 as shown
in Fig. 3. This allows fuel sender unit to more accurately sense the fuel level within the
tank 2 unaffected by fuel movement within the tank.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007