Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
109, 110, 114, 118, 122, 126, 128, 132, 138 and 139 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindquist. Having already
discussed Lindquist, we, like the appellants, are of the view
that:
[e]ach of the rejected claims patentably
distinguishes over Lindquist et al. by reciting an
inner tank, an outer shell spaced apart from the
inner tank and insulating material filling the space
between the inner tank and the outer shell. Since
the Lindquist et al. patent does not teach or
suggest the recited outer shell, it does not render
obvious the claimed invention (brief, pages 20-21;
our emphasis).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell,
991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As previously
determined, Lindquist clearly does not show a storage tank
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007