Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
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.
We now look at the examiner's rejection of claim 108
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by
Johnston. While Johnston does show three layer tanks, as
discussed above, we note that claim 108 on appeal requires
that the insulating material filling the space between the
inner tank and the outer shell be "sufficient to at least meet
a two-hour fire wall rating." To support a rejection of a
claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Johnston fails to disclose each and every element of claim 108
on appeal, namely insulating material filling the space
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007