Appeal No. 1998-1426
Application No. 08/315,350
(Paper No. 19, filed November 10, 1997) and supplemental reply
brief (Paper No. 23, filed September 17, 1999) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Durkop in view of Bliss, we refer to appellants'
arguments (brief, pages 8-11; reply brief, pages 2-4; and
supplemental reply brief, pages 2-7), and note our agreement
with appellants' view that the above ground cryogenic storage
tank of Bliss and the below ground fuel storage tank of Durkop
are entirely different in design, purpose and operation from
each other, and that both are far removed from appellants'
field of endeavor involving an above ground hazardous material
storage tank. Moreover, even if one skilled in the art would
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007