Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
suggestion or incentive in either Lindquist or Searle which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to form the
above ground storage tank of Lindquist as a tank with three,
rather than two layers. Thus, we will not sustain 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.
Next for our consideration is the examiner's rejection of
claims 89, 92, 93, 107 through 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122,
123, 126 through 128, 130, 132 through 135 and 138 through 141
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindquist
in view of Kettlewell, Pritchard, Setzekorn and Mapes. Having
previously discussed the teachings of Lindquist and
Kettlewell, we will now review the teachings of Pritchard,
Setzekorn and Mapes. We see that Pritchard shows a single
walled tank construction having horizontal top supports 22',
31'. Setzekorn shows a fermentation tank having bottom
supporting beams 24 mounted underneath the base surface for
added strength. And, Mapes shows a tank to be used for the
storage of gases, and having feet 13 adapted to be secured to
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007