Ex parte REINER et al. - Page 6




                                                                                                                                      Page 6                        
                   Appeal No. 1998-1373                                                                                                                             
                   Application No. 08/377,473                                                                                                                       


                   conclusion that the combined teachings of Heyl and Clark establish a prima facie case of                                                         

                   obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and the rejection is                                                           
                   sustained.                                                                                                                                       
                            The appellants have chosen to group together claims 1-3, 7-13, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26                                                       
                              3                                                                                                                                     
                   and 27,  and have not argued the merits of any of these claims apart from the others in the                                                      
                   group.  Therefore, the rejection of these claims is sustained along with  representative                                                         

                   claim 1.  See 37 CFR  1.192(c)(7) and Section 1206 of the Manual of Patent Examining                                                            

                   Procedure.                                                                                                                                       
                            Dependent claims 4-6 stand rejected on the basis of Heyl, Clark and Jelich.  Claim                                                      
                   4 adds to claim 1 the requirement that there be means for detecting a clogging condition of                                                      
                   the second filter unit, which means is not shown in the drawings but is described on page                                                        
                   10 of the specification as comprising “a conventional pressure differential gauge.”  Jelich                                                      
                   is directed to a device for filtering dust from gases.  One of ordinary skill in the art would                                                   
                   have been appraised by Jelich of the problem of malfunctioning filters, and would have                                                           
                   been taught to utilize sensors to determine whether this condition exists, whereupon the                                                         
                   filter is reverse flushed with a blast of air to remove the particles that have clogged it.                                                      



                            3 While claims 22 and 25 were included in this group, they were rejected on different                                                   
                   grounds, and the appellants argued that they were separately patentable on page 9 of the                                                         
                   Brief.                                                                                                                                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007