Ex Parte Sahasrabudhe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 1, 2012

11290021 (B.P.A.I. May. 1, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte RATNAKAR SAHASRABUDHE, SAMUEL
VINCENT DUPLESSIS, MARKUS DANTINNE, and TERRY
ZERGER
________________

Appeal 2011-006867
Application 11/290,021
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006867
Application 11/290,021

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 12-16, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a water filtration system
suitable for in-home use. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A filter cartridge for use in a fluid filtration system including a sump
coupled to a filter head, said filter cartridge comprising:

a top end cap and a bottom end cap spaced apart from said top end
cap, said bottom end cap comprising a lip that extends upwardly from said
bottom end cap towards said top end cap, said lip comprising at least one
alignment tab extending radially outward from a top edge of said lip such
that a radially outer edge of said at least one alignment tab is configured to
engage an inner side wall of said sump to facilitate a vertical positioning of
said filter cartridge;

a filter media disposed between said top end cap and said bottom end
cap; and

a filter outlet channel defined within said filter media and extending
between said top end cap and said bottom end cap, said filter outlet channel
including an open top end proximate said top end cap and a closed bottom
end proximate said bottom end cap.

Appellants request review of the following rejections (App. Br. 8)
from the Examiner’s final office action:
1. Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,289,847 to
Rothemund (issued Dec. 6, 1966).1

1 In responding to arguments for dependent claims 5, 13, and 20, the
Examiner additionally cited Kadirvelu. (Ans. 15). This reference was not
included in the statement of the rejection and is not directed to subject matter
Appeal 2011-006867
Application 11/290,021

3
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rothemund in view of Jousset, U.S. Patent
Publication No. 2001/0040120 (pub. Nov. 15, 2001).

OPINION

The dispositive issue for these rejections is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that Rothemund discloses or suggests a bottom end cap on a
water filter cartridge with tabs that (a) extend radially from a top edge of a
upwardly extending lip and (b) are configured to engage the side wall of the
sump or cartridge housing to arrive at the subject matter of independent
claim 1?
We answer this question in the negative and REVERSE.
We agree with Appellants that Rothemund does not disclose the
claimed tabs for two reasons. First, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been led to place the notched flange2 of Rothemund on a top edge of
the end cap in Rothemund because the top edge is “forced fit” to an outer
tubular member that completely covers the top edge and top half of the end
cap. Thus, the top edge of the upwardly extending lip of the bottom end cap
in Rothemund is not exposed for “tabs” to be relocated to this portion of the
Rothemund design. Rothemund, col. 3, lines 70-75; App. Br. 9, 11.
Second, the notches described in Rothemund do not engage an inner
wall of the sump. App. Br. 10. Appellants direct the Examiner to the gap

that is related to the dispositive issue. Accordingly, we will not address this
reference.
2 The feature numbered “40” in Rothemund is referred to multiple ways in
this appeal, including: notches, notched flange, extensions, and tabs.
Appeal 2011-006867
Application 11/290,021

4
between the notched flange (40) and the wall of the sump (10) shown in
Figure 3 of Rothemund. We agree with Appellants that Rothemund does not
disclose a tab on a bottom end cap that either engages an inner side wall of
said sump or serves to align the filter cartridge vertically within the sump.
Id.
The Examiner concedes that Rothemund discloses tabs that extend
radially outward from the bottom edge of the bottom end cap rather than
from “a top edge of said lip” (Ans. 10, quoting claim 1). We are not
persuaded by the Examiner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been able to construct the Rothemund tabs to extend out from
the bottom end cap’s top edge to still provide the “shield effect” of
Rothemund because the forced fit relationship to the tubular member
retaining the filter media appears to preclude such a construction.
We also are not persuaded by the Examiner’s assertion that the
Rothemund Specification discloses engagement of the notched flange with
the wall of the sump where it is stated the notched flange “substantially
spans the entire area of the sump.” Ans. 9-10 (quoting Rothemund, col. 5, ll.
46-61).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-9,
12-16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S.
Patent No. 3,289,847 to Rothemund.
We note that the Examiner rejected dependent claim 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rothemund in view of Jousset. Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellants that Jousset does not remedy the deficiency of
Rothemund. App. Br. 17-18. Therefore, we also cannot sustain the
Appeal 2011-006867
Application 11/290,021

5
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
reasons given above. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection as well.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rothemund is reversed.

The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rothemund in view of Jousset is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl