Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
construction of the gasoline storage tank in the basic
reference to Lindquist, motivated by the added insulation
achieved by such a construction and the efficient space/volume
relationship provided by a cylindrical tank. Again, we note
that even if the combination posited by the examiner were to
be made, a point in some doubt given the totally disparate
construction and uses of the tanks in Lindquist and Johnston,
the resulting storage tank would not be that specifically
defined in appellants' claim 137 on appeal. Replacing the
inner tank 4 of Lindquist with a double walled cylindrical
tank as in Johnston and then encasing the cylindrical tank in
the outer concrete tank 8 of Lindquist would not provide
appellants' recited three layer tank. Therefore, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 137 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindquist in view of
Johnston.
We now review the examiner's rejection of claims 152 and
154 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lindquist in view of Searle. Claims 152 and 154 on appeal
each recite a process or method of forming an above ground
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007