Ex Parte Hansen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

11642014 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/642,014 12/19/2006 Robert Hansen 6163 9831
7590 08/30/2012
Carl L. Johnson
Jacobson and Johnson
Suite 285
One West Water Street
St. Paul, MN 55107-2080
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ, MADELINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT HANSEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-005780
Application 11/642,014
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-4 and 6-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
The Examiner rejects claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yamamoto1 in view of Baumann2, Reynolds3, and Morgan4,

1 Yamamoto et al., US 4,420,396, patented Dec. 13, 1983.
2 Baumann et al., US 6,569,326 B1, patented May 27, 2003.
3 Reynolds et al., US 2005/0000886 A1, published Jan. 6, 2005.
Appeal 2011-005780
Application 11/642,014

2
and rejects claims 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yamamoto in view of Baumann and Morgan.
For the reasons presented in the Answer, we AFFIRM. We add the
following for emphasis.
Appellant’s invention relates generally to filter systems having filter
cartridges mounted on filter mounts using of connector elements, referred to
as dogs (Spec. 2:3-5). The dogs on the filter cartridge co-act with elevating
dogs on the filter mount to hold the filter cartridge on the filter mount (Spec.
6:16-20). The dogs on the filter cartridge are multifaceted dogs (see
multifaceted dogs 35 and 36 on the inner band 31b of filter 30 of Figure 1).
As discussed in Appellant’s Specification, “[t]he concept of industrial
filter mounts and industrial filters with a metal end cap are known in the art
of conveying systems.” (Spec. 2:17-18.) The Specification states that,
“[t]ypically, the filter mount includes a set of four dogs that rotationally
wedge against a set of four beveled dogs, which have been stamped in the
metal end cap.” (Spec. 2:22-23.) Appellant’s invention is directed to the
replacement of the conventional connector elements, which are stamped
beveled dogs (see, e.g., Fig. 6 at 70), with multifaceted dogs (see, e.g., Fig. 7
at 36).
It appears from Appellant’s own Specification that the arrangement of
the band within the interior of the filter cartridge was conventional and
known in the art and the difference between the prior art and Appellant’s
structure lies in the use of the multifaceted dogs in place of the stamped
beveled dogs (Spec. 2-3).

4 Morgan, US 6,716,348 B1, patented Apr. 6, 2004.
Appeal 2011-005780
Application 11/642,014

3
Appellant’s claims require that the multifaceted dogs contain a face
positioned at an acute angle with respect to an end of the band (See Claims
1, 12, and 16 as reproduced in the Claims Appendix to the Brief).
There is no real dispute that Morgan teaches angularly spaced cam
members 36 that are multifaceted, function as dogs, and include a face
positioned at an acute angle (Compare Br. 9 with Ans. 5-6).
Yamamoto teaches connector elements of a somewhat different design
in which projected pieces 21 fit into the grooves 23 (Yamamoto, Fig. 9; col.
6, ll. 37-62).
The prior art as a whole shows that various types of connector systems
were known in the art and useful for mounting filter cartridges onto filter
mounts. Using known connectors systems, such as the connector elements
of Morgan in order to obtain the benefits described in Morgan, i.e., to obtain
a safety locking detent (Morgan, col. 1, ll. 37-43), on other known prior art
filter cartridges and filter mounts would have been obvious to those in the
art. When using the connector system of Morgan, rotating the filter with
respect to the filter mount would axially displace the filter towards the filter
mount as required by claims 1, 12 and 16.
The evidence as a whole supports the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-005780
Application 11/642,014

4
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

cam