Ex parte REKOW et al. - Page 3




              Appeal No. 1997-1155                                                                     Page 3                
              Application No. 08/376,199                                                                                     


              2.      Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Tayebi in                    
              view of Gordon and Lehman.                                                                                     
              3.      Claims 19, 20, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable                    
              over Tayebi in view of Gordon and Jeffery.                                                                     
              4.      Claims 26, 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over                   
              Tayebi in view of Gordon, Jeffery and Forsgren.                                                                
                      Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 15) and the answer (Paper No. 16 ) for the                   
              respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these                     
              rejections.                                                                                                    
                                                         OPINION                                                             
                      In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                    
              appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective               
              positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we                  
              make the determinations which follow.                                                                          
                      Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, "a compressible sorbent filter element that                  
              comprises sorbent granules united in the form of a compressible porous unified body and that                   
              has first and second faces separated by a peripheral surface" and a filter element retainer                    
              including a wall that frictionally engages the peripheral surface of the filter element to compress            











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007