Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
We have previously indicated that we view the Kettlewell
device as being capable of storing gasoline or flammable
liquids, and that the six inch spacing between appellants'
inner tank and the outer shell would have been obvious to the
ordinarily skill artisan based on the teaching at page 1, col.
2, lines 17-19 of Kettlewell, and is a dimension which is not
indicated by appellants' disclosure as being critical. Thus,
we will affirm the examiner's rejection of claims 109, 115,
128, 130 and 141 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kettlewell in view of Lindquist.
We turn now to the examiner's rejection of claims 93,
108, 111 and 127 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Searle. As noted before, Searle discloses a
burial vault comprised of a mold box 1 or outer shell strongly
constructed of suitable sheet metal, and a casket box 2 also
strongly constructed, preferably of sheet metal, placed within
the mold box and spaced therefrom by rests or spacers 3.
Searle states:
This casket box has closed or imperforate walls and
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007