Appeal No. 2001-2072
Application 08/910,885
filter housing and as having a diameter closely dimensioned to
the outer diameter of the seating surface of a filter housing as
recited in appellants’ claim 1. However, the examiner states
that such limitations relate to the intended use of a filter
cartridge and carry no patentable weight.
In response, appellants refer to the case of In re Stencel,
828 F.2d 751,754-55, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appellants argue that in this case, the Court held that the
appellant is not barred from describing a driver in terms of the
structure imposed upon it by the collar as recited in the
preamble. (brief, page 8 and reply brief, page 2).
In response, the examiner states that In re Stencel does not
apply because the case concerns a lack of motivation to combine
two references under 35 U.S.C. § 103 whereas the rejection of
instant claim 1 involves a single reference under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. (answer, page 11).
It appears to us that appellants’ position is that their
claim 1 distinguishes over Hockett in that the filter cartridge
includes a sealing flange including a sealing surface with a
diameter closely dimensioned to the outer diameter of the axially
extending seating surface of the filter housing such that the
sealing flange is adapted to be pressed radially inward toward
the axis into a sealing relationship against the axially
extending seating surface of the filter housing. In this way,
appellants argue that their filter cartridge is being described
in their claim 1 in terms of the structure imposed upon it by the
axially extending seating surface 102 of flange 103 of the filter
housing.
We find that appellants’ Figure 3 illustrates radial seals
50 and 51 each having lips 84, 85 that are pressed firmly against
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007