Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
inorganic fireproof insulating material and we are of the
opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known
that, given the desired thickness of the insulating material
(about 6 inches), the tank of Kettlewell would inherently
provide a tank having such a fire wall rating.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that when all
the evidence is considered, the totality of the evidence
submitted by the appellants cannot be accorded substantial
weight, so that, on balance, the evidence of nonobviousness
fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject
matter of claims 118 and 132 on appeal would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art, and we sustain the
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
(1) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 89
through 156 as being unduly multiplied is reversed;
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007