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