Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
Lindquist, motivated by the efficient space/volume
relationship provided by a cylindrical tank. However, even if
this modification were made in Lindquist the resulting storage
tank would not be that set forth in appellants' claims 123,
135, 137 and 140 on appeal. To modify the two layer above-
ground storage tank of Lindquist by using a cylindrical inner
tank entombed within the outer concrete tank 8, would clearly
not provide appellants' claimed three layer tank. Thus, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 123, 135,
137 and 140 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lindquist in view of Kettlewell.
In looking at the examiner's rejection of claim 137 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindquist in
view of Johnston, we see that Johnston discloses an apparatus
for storing liquefied gases at temperatures materially below
273º Kelvin comprising an inner container 40, an insulating
means 38, a radiation shield 22 and an outer jacket 12.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the double
walled cylindrical tank teaching set forth in Johnston in the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007