Ex parte ADAMS et al. - Page 2


                 Appeal No. 1997-1735                                                                                                                   
                 Application 08/391,668                                                                                                                 

                 in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, “[b]oth the suggestion and the                                                
                 expectation of success must be found in the prior art and not in the applicant’s disclosure.”  In re Dow                               
                 Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531(Fed. Cir. 1988).  Thus, a prima facie                                             
                 case of obviousness can be established by showing that some objective teaching or suggestion in the                                    
                 applied prior art taken as a whole and/or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the                                
                 art would have led that person to the claimed invention as a whole, including each and every limitation                                
                 of the claims, without recourse to the teachings in appellants’ disclosure.  See generally In re Rouffet,                              
                 149 F.3d 1350, 1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great                                             
                 Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re                                              
                 Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447-48, 24 USPQ2d 1443,   1446-47 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Nies, J.,                                                 
                 concurring); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074-76, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988);                                            
                 Dow Chemical, supra.                                                                                                                   
                          The examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention                                
                 as a whole as encompassed by the appealed claims as a whole because he has not provided evidence                                       
                 and/or scientific evidence in the record (answer, pages 4 and 5-6) explaining how one of ordinary skill                                
                 in this art would have modified either the acknowledged prior art filter shown in specification Figures 4                              
                 and 73 or one or more of the Harms Figures according to the teachings in Harms in order to arrive at                                   
                 the air filter configured as specified in the appealed claims.  The appealed claims, as represented by                                 
                 claim 1, require that relative to a central plane, there are alternating high and low peaks on both the                                
                 upstream and downstream sides of the filter element, with claim 3 further specifying the widths of the                                 
                 panels in series which would characterize this arrangement.  See, e.g., specification FIG. 6.  Harms                                   
                 would have taught one of ordinary skill in this art to “form a plurality of crests and valleys with                                    
                 successive long folds being spaced by at least one of the short folds, thus maintaining the                                            
                 upstream crests of the long folds in spaced relationship to each other and increasing the                                              
                 downstream density of the formed filter medium” (col. 1, lines 47-51; emphasis added).  We find that                                   
                 Harms further discloses with respect to Figure 3 thereof that while “long folds 27 having crest portions                               

                 3  See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975).                                                           
                                                                         - 2 -                                                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007