Appeal No. 96-4152
Application 08/177,391
absence of any clear teaching in Stobbe and Bly of the
significance of their showings in the drawings concerning the
placement of the heater elements relative to the surfaces of
filters, it seems that the examiner’s reading of what these
references would have suggested one of ordinary skill in the
art is based on hindsight gleaned from reading appellants’
disclosure rather than on the fair
teachings of these references. Third, contrary to that which
is implied by the examiner in attempting to justify the
proposed modification of Bloom in view of Stobbe or Bly, it
can be argued, based on Bloom’s disclosure at column 2, lines
24 to 45, that spacing Bloom’s heater elements from the
filtering elements would
result in decreased efficiency in incinerating trapped
particulates, thus providing a disincentive for the proposed
change.
The remainder of the references applied in the examiner’s
various § 103 rejections (i.e., Ishida, Davis, Hammond,
Stanton and Roeser) have been carefully considered but do not
render obvious what we have found to be lacking in Bloom,
Stobbe and/or Bly. Accordingly, the standing § 103 rejections
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007