Page 4
Appeal No. 1998-1373
Application No. 08/377,473
knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific
hint or suggestion in a particular reference (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163
USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). Insofar as the references themselves are concerned, we
are bound to consider the disclosure of each for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill
in the art, including not only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom (see In re
Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
The appellants’ invention is directed to an apparatus in which particulate material
contents of rupturable bags may be charged for further handling. As recited in
independent claim 1, the invention comprises a first filter unit having an inlet
communicating with the hopper into which the material may be charged and a second filter
unit having an inlet communicating with the outlet of the first filter unit. Claim 1 stands
rejected as being unpatentable over Heyl in view of Clark. Heyl was cited by the appellants
on page 1 of their specification as being an example of the type of filter apparatus known
in the prior art. The appellants have not disputed the examiner’s contention that all of the
subject matter recited in claim 1 is disclosed by Heyl, except for the secondary filter unit. It
is the examiner’s position, however, that Clark discloses a filtering apparatus having two
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007