Appeal No. 2002-0416
Application 08/902,625
through the filter media horizontally in a radial direction
rather than vertically, and that there is no disclosure in
Thorman of the valleys of the filter media being positioned below
a mounting frame.
Our determinations regarding the orientation of the mounting
frame/filter element, as discussed supra, also apply here. That
is, claim 30 does not require that the frame be mounted in the
manner argued by appellants for the reasons discussed earlier in
this decision.
However, we agree with appellants that Fujii in view of
Thorman do not teach that “the valleys of the filter media all
lying in the same plane being positioned below the mounting frame
and the peaks rising to at least the bottom of the frame . . .”
[emphasis added]. On page 13 of the answer, the examiner asserts
that Fujii teaches filter media having valleys “able/capable of
operation below frame 6,7”. However, as depicted in Figure 6 of
Fujii, the filter media is not positioned below the mounting
frame.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 30, 31, 32 and
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view
of Thorman.
IV. The rejection of claims 33-35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Rodgers
We consider claim 33 in this rejection.
On pages 8-9 of the brief, appellants argue that the
recitations to the pan and vehicle found in independent claim 33
is not taught by Fujii in view of Rodgers. Appellants also state
that Fujii has a filter media extending upwardly so that if the
holes 9 of Fujii’s filter media are used for coupling the filter
to another element, the coupling is accomplished for a different
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007