Appeal No. 1997-1155 Page 8
Application No. 08/376,199
overcome the above-noted deficiency of the combination of Tayebi and Gordon. Accordingly,
we also shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 19, 20, 24 and 25, which depend
from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Tayebi in view of Gordon and Jeffery.
Turning finally to the examiner's rejection of claims 26, 27 and 29 as being
unpatentable over Tayebi in view of Gordon, Jeffery and Forsgren, we have reviewed the
teachings of Forsgren and find nothing therein which overcomes the above-noted deficiency of
the combination of Tayebi, Gordon and Jeffery. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 26, which depends from claim 1. Claims 27 and 29 are directed
to the method of replacing a first compressible filter element with a second compressible filter
element, wherein each of the filter elements includes a sorbent filter that comprises sorbent
granules that are united together in the form of a compressible porous unified body. The
claimed method requires a step of inserting the second compressible filter element into a
retainer with the filter element being compressed upon insertion into the retainer to make an
airtight fit with the retainer. As none of the references applied by the examiner provides a
suggestion to insert a compressible sorbent filter comprising sorbent granules that are united
together in the form of a compressible porous unified body into a retainer such that it is
compressed upon insertion, we shall also not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 27
and 29.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007