Appeal No. 2000-1142 Page 6
Application No. 08/753,230
motivated to use a pleated filter media in the process of Brimberg because the pleated
filter media has greater surface area which will improve air filtration.
Appellants also argue that the use of planar sheets is preferred by Brimberg.
(Brief, p. 5). Appellants’ argument is not well taken since a reference is available for all
that it teaches, not just the preferred embodiments. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179,
201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280
(CCPA 1976); and In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972).
Furthermore, Appellants’ argument is not directed to the claimed invention. The
invention of claim 1 is directed to a method of making a filter, not the resulting filter
product. Aside from the difference in structure of the filter media, Appellants have not
contested the remaining process limitations of claim 1.
With regard to claim 8, rather than argue the combination of cited references,
Appellants argue that “[c]laim 8 recites that the junction between the sealing lip and the
frame take the form of a film hinge. Such hinges are generally delicate, and are suitable
only for use in static environments.” (Brief, p. 8). The issue regarding the invention of
claim 8 is whether the mold or die used in the method of claim 1 could have been in the
form of a film hinge. The specification does not describe the dimensions of the film
hinge. The Examiner cites Peras for describing various configurations of rims, i.e.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007