Ex Parte Jerg

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2010

10603531 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte HELMUT JERG
______________

Appeal 2009-012356
Application 10/603,531
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Applicant appeals to the Board from the decision of the Primary
Examiner finally rejecting claims 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 in the Office
Action mailed May 10, 2007. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002); 37 C.F.R. §
41.31(a) (2007).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-012356
Application 10/603,531
We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claim 1 illustrates Appellant’s invention of a filter, and is
representative of the claims on appeal:
8. A filter, comprising:
a filter body having a plurality of filter openings for filtering a
medium flowing through said openings; and
each of said openings being screened or covered by elements whose
state relative to said filter openings vary [sic] under the influence of the heat
of said medium flowing through said openings.
Appellant requests review of the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) advanced on appeal by the Examiner: claims 8 and 14 over
Alabaster (US 3,122,148). Br. 5;2 Ans. 4.
Opinion
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we concur with Appellant that the
Examiner has failed to establish that the claimed filter encompassed by
claims 8 and 14 would have been obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the
art over Alabaster. Accordingly, we will not sustain the ground of rejection
advanced on appeal. We add the following for emphasis.
The plain language of representative claim 1 specifies a filter
comprising at least, among other things, a plurality of filter openings in a
filter body for filtering a medium flowing through the filter openings,
wherein each of the filter openings in the filter body is screened or covered
by elements. See generally Spec. Claim 14, drawn to a dishwashing

2 We considered the Appeal Brief filed December 8, 2008, and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 30, 2009.
2
Appeal 2009-012356
Application 10/603,531
machine comprising at least, among other things, a filter, contains the same
language.
We find that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found that the
medium to be filtered flows through openings in mesh material 9 that
constitutes the body of Alabaster’s filter bag attached to wire frame 3, 4, 5.
Alabaster, e.g., col. 3, ll. 27-53, and Fig. 2. Alabaster would have disclosed
that the wire frame holds the bag open, forming throat 10, and provides form
to the mesh filter bag, thus holding the bag away from baffles 12, restricting
the cross section of the bag, and permitting the bag to flex in response to the
movement of baffle 24, reducing the width of the throat. Alabaster, e.g., col.
3, l. 67 to col. 4, l. 35, and Figs. 4-6.
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in
determining that throat 10 of Alabasters’ mesh filter bag is a filter opening in
the body of the filter bag as claimed in claims 8 and 14. Ans. 4-9; Br., e.g.,
6-7.
Accordingly, in the absence of a case of obviousness established by
the Examiner, we reverse the ground of rejection of claims 8 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Alabaster.
The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl

BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
100 BOSCH BOULEVARD
NEW BERN, NC 28562
3