Appeal No. 2003-1391
Application No. 09/165,772
the rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Basile discloses the continual
measurement of pressure and temperature in the detection of storage
tank leaks, with the calculation of pressure via the ideal gas law
at other known temperatures, for the purpose of comparing the
calculated pressure with the actual pressure to determine if a leak
has occurred (final Office action dated Mar. 15, 2001, Paper No.
15, pages 3-4; see also the Answer, page 4). The examiner
recognizes that Basile fails to test automotive tanks (Paper No. 15
at page 3). However, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the
method of Basile to automotive tanks (id.), especially since Basile
teaches the general applicability of this method to other tank-like
structures (Answer, page 5). We agree.
Appellants argue that Basile fails to teach or suggest the
claimed invention for four reasons (Brief, page 6). First,
appellants argue that Basile is not directed to a leak detection
2(...continued)
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn by the examiner
(Answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007