Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
Appellants' arguments concerning secondary considerations
(reply brief, page 4), (i.e., the declaration of William Y.
Hall) are of no moment with respect to the rejections under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and have not been considered with respect thereto.
The only claims in which we have sustained rejections under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a), which include a limitation that the tank be capable
of meeting a two hour fire wall rating, are claims 118 and 132
which stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Searle or Kettlewell. However, we are not
persuaded by appellants' secondary evidence with respect to
the above noted rejections of these claims. In that regard,
while it may be true that Mr. Hall was not aware of any other
prior tank that was capable of meeting a two hour fire wall
rating, as we have indicated above, we are of the view that
the construction of the Searle device having concrete between
the inner metal tank 2 and the outer metal shell 1, exactly as
appellants' tank does, would inherently provide a tank having
such a rating. Furthermore, mica, like concrete, is an
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007