Appeal No. 1997-0153
Application No. 08/375,681
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Schlobohn and claim
1, it is our opinion that the only difference is the
limitation of the specific type of filter (i.e., a bonded
sorbent filter element).
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(answer, p. 3) that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made,
to substitute the bonded sorbent filter element of Braun for
element “2” of Schlobohn. We agree.
The appellants urge that the use of a bonded sorbent
filter element is not taught by Schlobohm (brief, page 3). We
agree. However, the test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007