Ex Parte Reamsnyder et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2012

12184795 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER R. REAMSNYDER
and ROBERT L. SMITH
________________

Appeal 2011-001667
Application 12/184,795
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. The
Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 2, 3, 12-15, and 18-20 (see
Ans. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A filter, comprising:

a plurality of separately formed individual elongated members
arranged into a configuration such that a portion of an exterior filtering
Appeal 2011-001667
Application 12/184,795

2
surface of each of the plurality of separately formed individual elongated
members contacts a portion of an exterior filtering surface of at least one
other of the plurality of separate individual elongated members, each of the
plurality of elongated members having an internal cavity extending
completely therethrough, the plurality of individual elongated members
being formed from a filter media for filtering a fluid, wherein the exterior
filtering surface is defined by the filter media, the filter having a first end
and a second end defined by the ends of the plurality of individual elongated
members and a plurality of areas defined between each of the plurality of
individual elongated members wherein other portions of the exterior filtering
surface of each of the plurality of separate individual elongated members
does not contact another one of the plurality of separate individual elongated
members, wherein fluid flow is blocked at the first end by sealing the
plurality of areas at the first end with a sealing material and fluid flow is
blocked at the second end by sealing the internal cavity of each of the
plurality of individual elongated members at the second end with a sealing
material, wherein fluid flow through the filter must pass through the filter
media.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3-4):
Nostrand 3,680,286 Aug. 01, 1972
Matsumoto EP 0 556 932 A1 Aug. 25, 1993
Olsen 6,315,130 B1 Nov. 13, 2001
Kelly 2005/0035052 A1 Feb. 17, 2005

Tadeusz Jaroszczyk et al., New Generation Direct Flow Engine Air Filters –
Performance Analysis (Columbus Industries Inc., 2004).

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a filter comprising a
plurality of separately formed individual elongated members whose exterior
filtering surface contacts a portion of an adjacent filtering surface.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) Claims 1 and 16 over Nostrand in view of Matsumoto,
Appeal 2011-001667
Application 12/184,795

3
(b) Claim 5 over Nostrand in view of Matsumoto, Olsen, and
Jaroszczyk, and
(c) Claims 4, 6-11 and 17 over Nostrand in view of Matsumoto, Olsen,
Jaroszczyk, and Kelly.

Appellants do not separately argue any particular claim on appeal.
Also, Appellants do not present separate, substantive arguments against the
§ 103 rejections (b) and (c) set forth above. Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Nostrand discloses a filter much like that claimed with the exception of not
having a portion of an exterior filtering surface of the elongated filter
members contacting a portion of an exterior filtering surface of another
elongated filtering member. As acknowledged by the Examiner, the
surfaces of Nostrand’s elongated filtering members do not contact each
other. Matsumoto, however, evidences that it was known in the art to form a
filter comprising elongated filtering members wherein, like Appellants’
filter, a portion of an exterior surface of the elongated filtering members
contacts a portion of the exterior surface of another filtering member.
Appeal 2011-001667
Application 12/184,795

4
Accordingly, based on the collective teachings of Nostrand and Matsumoto,
we concur with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to construct a filter comprising separately formed
individual elongated filtering members having a portion of their exterior
filtering surfaces contacting a portion of the exterior filtering surface of
another filtering member. In our view, it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to either modify the filter of Nostrand or form the
filter of Matsumoto from separately formed individual elongated filter
members in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Appellants’ arguments, for the most part, focus upon Nostrand and
Matsumoto individually, i.e., Appellants point out how neither reference
discloses the claimed filter. However, it is well settled that the test for
obviousness under § 103 is what the collective teachings of the applied
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and
Appellants have not presented a persuasive reason for why the modifications
of Nostrand and Matsumoto proposed by the Examiner would not have been
obvious. While Appellants maintain that Nostrand teaches away from direct
contact between the filtering members, Appellants have not refuted the
Examiner’s position that “[n]o where within the reference is it stated that the
filter media cannot be in direct contact” (Ans. 13, third para.). Appellants
have not articulated any mechanical or functional advantage of having
portions of the filtering members in contact, and we are persuaded by the
Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been within the skill of the ordinary
artisan “to make the filtering apparatus as compact as possible, e.g., having
the filter members in direct contact, in order to utilize the most space for the
filtering material” (Ans. 14, second para.).
Appeal 2011-001667
Application 12/184,795

5
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

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)(v).
AFFIRMED

ssl