Appeal No. 2000-1230
Application No. 08/717,904
fact that a very real problem of implosion exist [sic:
existed] within the prior art" (brief, page 7). This argument
is not persuasive, absent any showing that the art tried and
failed to solve the problem, notwithstanding its presumed
knowledge of the references. In re Neal, 481 F.2d 1346, 1347,
179 USPQ 56, 57 (CCPA 1972). Also, as stated in Savoy Leather
Mfg. Corp. v. Standard Brief Case Co., Inc., 261 F.2d 136,
138, 119 USPQ 336, 337 (2d. Cir. 1958):
It is as plausible to attribute the six year
lapse [between the date of the reference and
applicant’s invention] to the belief on the part
of mechanics in the art that in light of the
highly developed state of the art an advance so
small as that of [applicant] was not patentable.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and of claim 2
which appellants have grouped therewith, will be sustained.
Claim 3 recites, inter alia, that the vent check valve
comprises "a movable valve element mounted interiorly of . . .
said holding tank." Appellants argue that the valve element N
of Kinsey is not mounted "interiorly" of the vessel or tank C,
as claimed (brief, page 8). The examiner responds that
Kinsey’s valve element is mounted interiorly of the tank to
the same extent that appellants’ valve element 153 is, but
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007