Appeal No. 2000-1230
Application No. 08/717,904
in the art. Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.,
770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It is evident from the Kinsey patent that the disclosed valve
would be applicable to any enclosure which is in danger of
collapsing due to loss of internal pressure, including a
"vessel" (page 1, line 16) and a "tank" (page 1, line 106). 1
Thus, since there is a known problem of damage or implosion of
the conventional sewage holding tank when being pumped out,
and Kinsey teaches the desirability of providing a check valve
on a vessel or tank to admit air and prevent collapse of the
vessel or tank if too much air is removed therefrom, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
followed the teaching of Kinsey by providing such a valve on
the holding tank in the conventional system disclosed by
appellants in order to overcome the damage or implosion
problem. Such a conclusion of obviousness is based not on
impermissible hindsight gleaned from appellants’ disclosure,
1The statement on page 1 of the reply brief that "there
is absolutely no disclosure in Kinsey, Jr. of a ’tank’" is
incorrect.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007