Appeal No. 2005-2646
Application No. 09/948,377
the view that there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied prior art to
support the examiner’s modification of Bartalone in the manner urged in the final
rejection. We agree. In the first place, the fins (332) shown in Figures 10 and 11 of
Bartalone are clearly not rectangular in shape from bottom to top as the examiner
contends. It is readily apparent from Bartalone’s Figures 10 and 11 that the fins (332) on
the housing cover or top (110), like the fins (350) on the side wall of reservoir housing
(108), are tapered in cross section from bottom to top. The fins on the top portion of the
fuel condenser seen in Figure 8 of Mitterer are likewise not rectangular in shape (cross
section) from bottom to top. Moreover, Bartalone and Mitterer both disclose cooler
structures which include fins on the top as well as on the side walls to facilitate cooling
of the various fluids used therein. Thus, we see no way that the teachings of Bartalone
and Mitterer, even
if combinable, would have resulted in an oil filter like that claimed by appellant wherein
fins of the particular configuration claimed are incorporated in and limited only to the top
of the oil filter.
Regarding the examiner’s further positions that (1) it would have been obvious to
limit the fins to the top portion of the filter since one of ordinary skill in the art can easily
adapt the shape and size of the filter to include the fins only on
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007