Appeal No. 2002-0416
Application 08/902,625
We determined that because the last 3 lines of claim 33
recite “wherein when the frame is mounted in the peripheral area
of the sump . . .” [emphasis added], claim 33 does not require
that the frame be mounted in the manner discussed above. Hence,
in this context, we agree with the examiner that this aspect of
the claim bears no patentable weight. That is, it is not a
requirement of claim 33.
However, we do agree with appellants that Rodgers teaches to
locate the filter media above mounting frame 21 rather than below
mounting frame 21. See figure 5, for example, of Rodgers.
Hence, the aspect of claim 33 that recites that “the valleys of
the filter media all lying in the same plane being positioned
below the mounting frame and the peaks rising to at least the
bottom of the frame . . .” [emphasis added], is not met by the
teachings of Rodgers.
Hence, we reverse the rejection of claims 33-35 and 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rodgers.
III. The rejection of claims 30-32, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Thorman
We consider claim 30 in this rejection.
On pages 8-9 of the brief, appellants again argue that the
recitations to the pan and vehicle cannot be ignored in claim 30,
and therefore this rejection cannot be sustained. Appellants
also state that Fujii discloses a filter media extending upwardly
so that if the holes 9 of Fujii’s filter media are used for the
coupling the filter to another element, the coupling is
accomplished for a different orientation. Appellants also argue
that the filter of Fujii is directed to an air filter rather than
a transmission oil filter. Appellants also argue that Thorman
discloses a ring-type filter media in which the fluid flows
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007