11696758 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 2012)

Ex Parte Senetar

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 4, 2012

11696758 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 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. 11/696,758 04/05/2007 Michael J. Senetar III 4191-00454 5073 26753 7590 09/04/2012 ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP 100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE, SUITE 1100 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER GONZALEZ, MADELINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1778 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2012 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 MICHAEL J. SENETAR, III ____________ Appeal 2011-003654 Application 11/696,758 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 8 and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 8 is illustrative: 8. A method of mating a filter media and liner pleat block, comprising providing a layer of filter media and a mesh screen liner pleated along axially extending pleat bend lines and wrapped around a closed loop to mating pleats, melting said filter media at said mating pleats to form a closed-loop-bonded said filter media and liner pleat block, wherein said closed loop defines a hollow interior, said mesh screen liner is an inner liner on the interior of said closed loop and facing said hollow interior, said filter media is on the exterior of said closed loop, and comprising ultrasonically welding said filter media along said exterior of said closed loop at said mating pleats by disposing a pair of ultrasonic welding heads on distally Appeal 2011-003654 Application 11/696,758 2 opposite sides of said mating pleats, with said filter media located between and providing cushioning between a respective said ultrasonic welding head and said mesh screen inner liner, engaging said ultrasonic welding heads directly against and abutting said filter media without an outer mesh screen liner therebetween, and ultrasonically welding said filter media to itself through said mesh screen inner liner by melting said filter media at said mating pleats to flow into said mesh screen inner liner such that filter media from one of said mating pleats melts and flows into said mesh screen inner liner and bonds to filter media from the other of said mating pleats melting and flowing into said mesh screen inner liner, said layer of filter media having an interior surface facing said mesh screen liner, and a distally oppositely facing exterior surface, wherein said mating pleats face each other at respective said interior surfaces thereof, and wherein said mesh screen liner is disposed between said interior surfaces of said mating pleats. The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness: Pall et al. (Pall) 3,865,919 Feb. 11, 1975 Altmeyer et al. (Altmeyer) 6,863,758 B1 Mar. 8, 2005 Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of making a filter media and liner pleat block. The method comprises, inter alia, providing a layer of filter media and a mesh screen liner pleated along axially extending pleat bend lines and wrapped around a closed loop to mating pleats. Appealed claims 8 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Altmeyer in view of Pall. We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s 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. Appeal 2011-003654 Application 11/696,758 3 Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Altmeyer’s disclosure of a method of assembling a filter element, which findings are set forth at pages 3-4 of the Answer. The Examiner acknowledges that Altmeyer’s method of making a filter media and liner pleat block does not include disposing a mesh screen liner as an inner liner on the interior of the closed loop. However, we agree with the Examiner that Pall evidences the obviousness of providing the filter media of Altmeyer with an inner mesh screen liner in order to permit free flow up and/or downstream of the filter layer and to better support the filter media. We note that Appellant “admits that mesh screen liners, inner and/or outer, are known in the prior art” (Br. 7, second para.). The principal argument advanced by Appellant is that Altmeyer teaches away from modifying the filter media by using a mesh screen liner because Altmeyer teaches that the top frontal end 38 of the filter is formed into a cone for facilitating the introduction of the filter into a cylindrical filter casing 16. However, Appellant offers no explanation why Altmeyer’s cone configuration would militate against using a mesh screen liner. Appellant presents a conclusion without an underlying rationale. Accordingly, Appellant has not refuted the Examiner’s finding that “[t]he filter mat of Altmeyer as modified by Pall would still be capable of being formed into a cone in order to be introduced inside the casing” (Ans. 8, first para.). Like the Examiner, we perceive no reason why the provision of a mesh liner in the filter media of Altmeyer would prevent the filter from Appeal 2011-003654 Application 11/696,758 4 being formed into a cone and introduced inside the casing, and Appellant has not provided any such reason. As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, 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. The decision of the Examiner 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)(iv). AFFIRMED cam