Appeal 2007-0305
Application 10/067,186
language. (Answer 7). That is, claim 1 expressly recites that the “receptacle
[is] formed from a composite sheet comprised of at least one layer of
expanded polytetrafl[uo]roethylene and at least one substrate layer”
(emphasis added). Therefore, the claim is open to more than two layers, and
certainly does not preclude a screen or other protective layer.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the term “disposable”
does nothing to distinguish the claimed filtration bag from Giannetta’s
filtration bag, as “the vacuum cleaner bag of the prior art is capable of being
disposable” (Answer 6). The Specification merely teaches that the bag “is
disposable and can be removed from the vacuum cleaner . . . when full and
replaced with another unused and empty dispoasable filtration bag” (Spec. 9:
21-22). Appellants have pointed to nothing in Giannetta which would
indicate that the prior art filtration bag cannot be removed and thrown away,
to be replaced by another bag.
Finally, we note Appellants’ discussion regarding affidavits attesting
to “actual reduction to practice and priority” and “testing by . . . an
independent third party laboratory to verify that the filtration bag meets the
‘HEPA’ standard in the filtration industry” (Br. 6). However, Appellants
have not explained how any of these affidavits are relevant to whether or not
Giannetta’s filtration bag meets the limitations of claim 1.
We find that Giannetta describes a composite filtration bag meeting
all of the limitations of claim 1. As discussed above, claims 2 and 3 stand or
fall with claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013