Ex parte REINER et al. - Page 4

                                                                                                   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