Ex parte GOMBOS - Page 6




                 Appeal No. 96-4157                                                                                                                     
                 Application 08/142,772                                                                                                                 


                 which act against filter cartridge flange(s).  As indicated                                                                            
                 above, Berglund's locking bars 9 act against filter cassette                                                                           
                 flanges via broad side surfaces on the bars.  The examiner's                                                                           
                 insistence that each of these broad side surfaces constitutes                                                                          
                 a "free edge" as recited in the appellant's claims (see page 7                                                                         
                 in the answer) runs counter to any reasonable interpretation                                                                           
                 of this term.                                                                                                                          
                          Thus, the examiner's prior art evidence fails to                                                                              
                 establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to                                                                            
                 the subject matter recited in claims 4 and 18, and in claims 6                                                                         
                 and 10 through                                                                                                                         
                 17 which depend from claim 4.   Accordingly, we shall not2                                                                                  
                 sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these                                                                                
                 claims.                                                                                                                                










                          2This being so, we find it unnecessary to delve into the                                                                      
                 merits of the appellant's evidence of non-obviousness.                                                                                 
                                                                           6                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007