Ex Parte Wnuk

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2012

10587302 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 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.
10/587,302 07/26/2006 Ralf Wnuk 51540 6536
1609 7590 07/25/2012
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, DENISE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2012 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 RALF WNUK
____________

Appeal 2010-011702
Application 10/587,302
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011702
Application 10/587,302

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 11-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a filtered device for use of
filter elements which can be held in a filter housing with a filter inlet and a
filter outlet for the fluid to be filtered, flow through the filter elements being
possible in both directions for filtration or backflushing. (Spec. 1). Claim
11 is illustrative:
11. A filter device, comprising:
a filter housing having an unfiltered fluid inlet, a filtered
fluid outlet and a backwash fluid outlet;
filter elements in said housing receiving fluid flow in one
direction for filtration and in an opposite direction for
backwashing effective filter surfaces thereof;
a pivoting device mounting said filter elements in said
filter housing for sequential rotational movement about a pivot
axis between filtration positions in which unfiltered fluid flows
from inside to outside through said filter elements and a
backwashing position in which filtered fluid flows from outside
to inside through said filter elements, said pivot device having a
rotatably mounted receiving part mounting said filter elements
parallel to said pivot axis along a path coaxial to said pivot axis
and having first and second end parts, said filter elements
extending between said end parts, said first end part facing
toward said fluid inlet and rotatably guided along an inside of
said filter housing by a seal; and
a drive being coupled to said receiving part to rotate said
receiving part, including a rod shaped drive part releasably
connecting said first and second end parts and including a
pneumatic motor producing alternating to and fro movements
Appeal 2010-011702
Application 10/587,302

3
on an output part convertible into a constant drive movement in
a drive direction of said drive part by a free wheel device.
Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s final office action (App. Br. 5):1
1. Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22-23 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) obvious over Sindorf, EP Publication No. 09100584 A1
published Mar. 10, 1999.

2. Claims 13, 16, 21 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being obvious over Sindorf and Wnuk, U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2003/0213127 A1 published Nov. 20, 2003.

OPINION
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that Sindorf would have led one skilled in the art to a filter
device that has a structure which allows the use of the filtered fluid for the
backwashing fluid as required by the subject matter of independent claims
11 and 19?2
We answer this question in the affirmative and we REVERSE.
During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 11-18 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. (Ans. 3).
2 We will focus our discussion on independent claim 11. Our discussion also
applies to independent claim 19.
Appeal 2010-011702
Application 10/587,302

4
Appellant correctly argues that Sindorf’s device does not have the
claimed structure that allows the use of the filtered fluid as the backwashing
fluid. Appellant correctly argues that the structure of the Sindorf device
utilizes a separate fluid stream for backwashing the filter. Consequently, in
order to achieve the claimed invention, more than mere reversal of the fluid
flow is required to achieve the claimed invention. (App. Br. 7). Appellant
also correctly notes that Sindorf’s filter element utilizes compressed air
forced upwardly through the interior of the filter in the backwashing
operation. (Id. at 8).
After a thorough review of the positions presented by the Examiner
and Appellant, we agree with Appellant that to modify the invention of
Sindorf to arrive at the claimed invention will require more than reversal of
the flow of the fluid. The Examiner’s explanation of obviousness does not
take into account Sindorf’s utilization of compressed air in the backwashing
operation and the modifications that would be necessary to utilize the
filtered fluid in the backwashing operation. Consequently, the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 12,
14, 15, 17-20, 22-23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being obvious
Sindorf. We also reverse the rejections of claims 13, 16, 21 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sindorf and Wnuk for the same reasons.
ORDER
The rejections of claims 11-25 are reversed.

REVERSED
bar