Appeal 2007-1112
Application 10/692,116
explicit suggestion be present for obviousness to exist. In this case, Caudill
has done nothing more than combine “familiar elements according to known
methods” without demonstrating that any unpredictable results were
obtained. See KSR, , 127 S.Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Caudill argues that the Examiner has provided no sufficient reason to
combine Haldenby and Seal. Caudill argues that the Examiner has not
explained “why those skilled in the art of designing high pressure steel
cylinders for storing hazardous chemicals in steel cylinders and used in
manufacturing would find it obvious to switch to an aluminum shell upon
reading the Seal reference.” (Reply Br. at 4). However, as explained by the
Examiner, gas containing cylinders are discussed in both Haldenby and Seal.
Haldenby discusses metal cylinders and steel cylinders in particular, lined
with plastic. The Examiner explains that one skilled in the art would have
reason to select a light weight metal such as aluminum for the Haldenby
cylinder and to use an overwrap having a high “strength to weight ratio” for
the purpose of reducing the weight of the cylinders while maintaining the
necessary strength. (Ex. Ans. at 5-6).
Caudill argues that the cylinders of Haldenby and the cylinders of
Seal are used in different environments and thus one skilled in the art would
not be motivated to combine the two. (Reply Br. at 5). Both Haldenby and
Seal discuss cylinders used for storing gases. (FFs 9 and 12). Thus, we do
not find Caudill’s argument persuasive.
Finally, Caudill argues that a plastic lining might not be necessary if
the metal selected is aluminum. (Reply Br. at 4). Haldenby notes that
plastic liners are used on the interior of “metal cylinders” to prevent attack
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013