Appeal No. 2000-0499
Application 08/716,431
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 5, it is our finding that De Groot discloses a
container to safely store and transport bulk volumes of
exothermic compound utilizing a rupture disk 106 or 15 wherein
the rupture disk allows venting of the decomposition gases to
prevent bursting of the tank. In our view, given the teaching
of De Groot that it is important to provide for the venting of
decomposition gases and entrained liquids to prevent bursting
of the tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the shipping container art to transport such
exothermic chemicals as De Groot discloses in the container
illustrated in Fig. 19 of Coleman which provides such a safety
mechanism.
With respect to the obviousness rejection, we must repeat
that it is improper for appellant to read limitations from the
specification into the claims on appeal. On page 7 of the
brief, appellant argues that Coleman does not recognize the
serious problem of transporting exothermic chemicals.
However, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007