Appeal No. 2000-1230
Application No. 08/717,904
First considering claim 1, all the elements recited
therein except the last, i.e., "means for providing vacuum
relief ... ,"
are disclosed by appellants as being conventional. The
examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to
provide the disclosed coventional holding tank 17 with a
vacuum relief means, as claimed, in view of Kinsey’s
disclosure of a vacuum valve. In particular, the examiner
points to Kinsey’s disclosure at page 1, lines 14 to 19, that
the disclosed valve is
adapted to operate automatically for permitting
return of air to a vessel being placed under
vacuum to prevent it from collapsing, if for any
reason the process of removing the air is
carried too far.
Appellants argue that Kinsey does not suggest the
structure of claim 1, because it does not provide vacuum
relief for a holding tank. The question involved here,
however, is whether claim 1 is unpatentable over the
combination of the admitted prior art and Kinsey, rather than
over Kinsey alone; the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007