Appeal No. 1998-1004
Application 08/401,984
within its scope valves 26 and 26´ shown in Levendis FIG. 4, which, when closed, are full partitions
serving the similar purpose of preventing the return of soot particulate containing gas to the filter, as
partial partition 502 in specification FIGs. 14 – 16. See answer, page 7, second full paragraph, and
brief, pages 4-6 and 11. Accordingly, appealed claim 27 does not patentably distinguish over Levendis
in this respect.
Appealed claim 30 provides that the “filters are axially compressed such that the . . . filter main
bodies are air-tightly sealed along the . . . inlets.” We give the term “axially” its common and ordinary
dictionary meaning of “[l]ocated on, around, or in the direction of an axis,” The American Heritage
Dictionary Second College Edition 146 (1982). Indeed, the written description of the specification
discloses that “[a]s shown in Fig. 7, the filter main body 20 is secured to an inner wall 201a of the
cylindrical container 201 by seal rings 202, 203 and support rings 204, 205” wherein “a gasket not
shown is arranged between the seal rings 202 or 203 and the filter main body 20” and the “support
rings 204, 205 are secured to the inner wall 201a of the container 201 . . . in such a manner that the
filter main body 20 is compressed in a through hole direction by the support rings 204 and 205” (page
10). In comparing such an embodiment of the claimed invention as encompassed by claim 30 with
Levendis, we find that the reference discloses, with respect to Levendis FIG. 1, that the particulate trap
or filter 14 is held inside casing member 12, inter alia, by two rings with sealing gaskets provided
between the rings and filter 14 (col. 3, lines 33-39). We find little difference between the manner in
which a particulate trap or filter is fitted inside a casing so as to insure that all of the particulate laden
exhaust gas passes through the trap or filter, is disclosed by appellants in their specification and by
Levendis, and indeed, each of these descriptions satisfy the language of claim 30 quoted and interpreted
above. As noted by the examiner, “claim 30 does not recite ‘support rings’ as a means for sealing the
filter elements, as stated in . . . [appellants’] arguments” (answer, page 8, first full sentence; brief, pages
6 and 11). Thus, appealed claim 30 does not patentably distinguish over Levendis.
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established over the
applied prior art with respect to appealed claims 24, 27 and 30, we have again evaluated all of the
evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration
to the weight of appellants’ arguments and the evidence in the Rule 132 Declaration of appellant
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007