Appeal 2007-1168
Application 10/211,407
an obvious optimization of a result effective variable. (Br. at 18–19.)
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, reading Lutzow, would have
recognized that the amount of meltblown polypropylene fiber relates to the
amount of liquid that can be wicked and retained. (See Lutzow at 5:49–52,
recognizing that the layer will not function as a barrier once it is saturated
with oil.) Similarly, reading Sorrick, such a person would have recognized
that thicker melt-blown polypropylene fiber layers are mechanically sturdier
(Sorrick at 2:3–7 and at 4:51-53), and yet offer more resistance to fluid
(id. at 53–54) and decrease the effective life of the filter (id. at 5:32–64,
discussing the tradeoffs that must be considered regarding the amount of
SMS and melt-blown fibers in the filters). Thus, the Examiner's finding that
the thickness of the layer of meltblown fibers would have been recognized
as a result-effective variable is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence of record. This situation is an example of a need or problem
known in the field and addressed by prior art providing "a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed." See KSR 127 S.Ct. at 1742,
82 USPQ2d at 1389-90 (2007). As the Court stressed, the problem solved
need not be the same as the problem addressed by the patentee (here, the
applicant). Id.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1 and 6–10 as
obvious under § 103 over the combined teachings of Lutzow and Sorrick.
Claims 2, 4, 11–15, 19, and 20
Claims 2, 4, 11–15, 19, and 20 differ from claims 1 and 6–10 in that
they also specify the thickness of the first layer (and second layer, if
present); some claims also recite the weight per unit area of the first (and
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013