Appeal 2006-2494
Application 10/651,553
3) Claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Baba and Peters.
IV. ISSUE
Has the Examiner demonstrated that Baba either expressly or
inherently describe the claimed filtering step within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
V. RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. Baba teaches supplying, by an auger 3, a kneaded ceramic material
through a grid drum 7 in which the material is loosened and crushed (col. 3,
ll. 11-56). “The loosened and crushed ceramic material is formed by the
forming column ring 4 and the cutting machine 8 into a formed circular
cylinder or columnar body…the formed columnar body is extruded by the
conventional plunger molding machine to form a formed body having a
predetermined shape” (col. 3, ll. 56-65).
2. Baba is silent as to filtering the ceramic batch material with “filter wires
having a wedge shaped cross section” as required by claim 1 (col. 1-6).
3. Baba’s grid drum illustrated in Figures 3a and 3b relied upon by the
Examiner provides no filtering function (no separation of particles) (id).
VI. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. In
re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013