Appeal No. 2003-1391
Application No. 09/165,772
system for an automotive fuel system but is directed to a leak
detection system for double walled tanks of sea-going vessels with
cargoes of liquefied gases (id.). This argument is not persuasive
since, as noted above by the examiner, Basile teaches that their
method is applicable as a leak detection system for “indicating
leaks within the walls of an enclosed constant volume tank.”
Basile, col. 1, ll. 23-26. Accordingly, we concur with the
examiner that Basile would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the leak detection system art the applicability of their method
to other types of constant volume storage tanks.3
Additionally, we note that claim 1 under consideration does
not require that the method be performed in an automotive vehicle
fuel system. The phrase “for automotive evaporative leak
detection” as recited in claim 1 on appeal is merely a preamble of
intended purpose, and this phrase is not language that is essential
to particularly point out the invention defined by the claims. See
Bell Communications Research inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp.,
55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1819-20 (Fed. Cir. 1995). When a
3Appellants do not specifically argue that Basile is non-
analogous art (see the Brief in its entirety). Therefore we do
not consider the argument supra as an argument that Basile is
non-analogous art, in contrast to the examiner (Answer, pages 4-
5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007