Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
Appellants have not argued or otherwise demonstrated that the
vault structure of Searle is not capable of storing a liquid
such as gasoline above ground.
Appellants' additionally argue that "[c]laim 108 not only
recites 'an inner tank for storing gasoline' but further
recites 'the insulating material being sufficient to at least
meet a two-hour fire wall rating.' Searle discloses neither
of these features" (brief, page 17). We are not persuaded by
this argument. In our view, the functional limitations set
forth in appellants' claim 108 do not serve to patentably
distinguish appellants invention from Searle because those
limitations would be inherent in the prior art vault
structure. Furthermore, it is our view that it would have
been an inherent property of the cement or concrete filling
the space between the inner box 2 and outer mold 1 of Searle
to at least meet a two-hour fire wall rating, as required by
claim 108 on appeal. A reference may be from an entirely
different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention
or may be directed to an entirely different problem from the
one addressed by the inventor, yet the reference will still
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007