Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
anticipate if it explicitly or inherently discloses every
limitation recited in the claims. See In re Schreiber,
at 1477, 44 USPQ2d at 1431. As a result, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 93, 108, 111 and 127 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Searle.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is
that of claims 110, 118, 132 and 139 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Searle. In looking at these
claims, we see that claim 110 includes the limitations that
"the bottom of the inner tank spaced substantially six inches
from the bottom of the outer shell" and "the side walls of the
inner tank spaced substantially six inches from the side walls
of the outer shell." It is clear to us that such sizing and
spacing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art when the mold and casket of Searle are sized to
receive a small adult or a child. As for the use limitation
regarding the storage of gasoline above ground and the fire
wall rating set forth in those claims, we refer to our
comments above concerning claims 93, 108, 111 and 127. Thus,
we sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claims 110,
35
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007