Appeal No. 1998-3016
Application No. 08/568,344
Additionally, we note that claim 11 requires a base
member including a passage for an air-oil mixture and a
passage for clean air, both passages being in communication
with the coalescer element. From our perspective there is no
evidence with respect to the general state of the art which
discloses or suggests a base member with two passages in
communication with the coalescer element as recited in claim
11. Our review of Thurman also reveals nothing therein which
teaches or suggests this feature. The examiner's rejection of
claim 11 as being unpatentable over Thurman taken in view of
the general state of the art, will not be sustained because,
in our view, the combined teachings of Thurman and the general
state of the art fail to disclose or suggest a base member
including a passage for an air-oil mixture and a passage for
clean air, both passages being in communication with the
coalescer element, as recited in claim 11.
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are dependent on claim 11. Thus,
it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims
11 through 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Thurman taken in view of the general state
of the art is reversed.
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007