Ex parte HALL et al. - Page 32




          Appeal No. 1998-1357                                                        
          Application No. 08/348,744                                                  


               the cover is also imperforate and the entire                           
               interior surfaces of the box and cover are                             
               preferably enameled or provided with any suitable                      
               impervious coating 23, to render the box absolutely                    
               tight (page 1, column 2, lines 61-67).                                 

          Once the casket box 2 is placed within the mold box 1, on                   
          supports 3;                                                                 
               the mold box is then completely filled with suitable                   
               grouting, cement, concrete or other suitable plastic                   
               material so as to entirely and completely inclose the                  
               casket box and form a seamless continuous sealing and                  
               inclosing wall between the bottom, sides and ends of                   
               the casket box and the corresponding walls of the                      
               mold                                                                   
               box and entirely covering the casket box to the level                  
               of the top edges of the mold box (page 2, column 1,                    
               lines 12-22).                                                          

               The examiner concluded that the Searle reference clearly               
          anticipates claims 93, 108, 111 and 127.  The examiner                      
          indicates that the claim portions "for storing a flammable                  
          liquid," "for storing a liquid" and "for storing gasoline" are              
          directed to intended use and "thus not awarded patentable                   
          weight" (answer, page 4).  We agree with the examiner and thus              
          will affirm his rejection of claims 93, 108, 111 and 127 under              
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Searle.  To              
          support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it                 

                                         32                                           





Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007