Ex parte REINER et al. - Page 7

                                                                                                       Page 7                 
              Appeal No. 1998-1373                                                                                            
              Application No. 08/377,473                                                                                      

              Jelich teaches using pressure sensors for measuring pressure differential to detect  this                       
              condition.  See column 2, line 35 et seq.  It is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art                 
              would have found it obvious, in view of the teachings of Jelich, to add pressure sensors to                     
              the modified Heyl apparatus to measure the pressure differential across the filters to                          
              detect a filter whose effectiveness has diminished due to being clogged.  The rejection of                      
              claim 4 therefore is sustained, along with the rejection of claims 5 and 6, which depend                        
              from claim 4 and were grouped therewith.                                                                        
                      Claims 22 and 25 have been found by the examiner to be unpatentable over the                            
              combined teachings of Heyl, Clark and Hough, the latter being cited for its teaching of a                       
              substantially vertically oriented first air plenum and first filter element.  Of the three                      
              references applied, Heyl discloses horizontally oriented elements, Hough discloses                              
              vertically oriented elements, and Clark discloses both vertically and horizontally oriented                     
              elements.  In our opinion, this is evidence that vertical and horizontal orientations of filter                 
              elements and the plenums in which they are installed were known alternatives in the art at                      
              the time of the appellants’ invention, the selection of which would have been within the skill                  
              of the artisan for the self evident advantages of each.  In this regard, we observe that the                    
              appellants have not argued in their Brief that the claimed vertical arrangement solves any                      
              stated problem, provides an unexpected result, or is critical to the operation of the system.                   
              The rejection of claims 22 and 25 is sustained.                                                                 

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007