Appeal No. 2002-0416
Application 08/902,625
orientation. Appellants also argue that Fujii is directed to an
air filter rather than a transmission oil filter.
For the reasons already discussed in this decision, the
orientation of the mounting frame/filter element is not a
requirement of claim 33, and therefore appellants’ arguments in
connection with this issue are unconvincing.
However, we agree with appellants that Fujii in view of
Rodgers do not teach 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]. As depicted in Figure 6 of Fujii, the filter
media is not positioned below the mounting frame.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 33-35 and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of
Rodgers.
V. The rejection of claims 30-32 and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Knecht in view of Thorman
We consider claim 30 in this rejection.
On pages 9-10 of the brief, appellants argue that the
rejection ignores limitations to the transmission pan and
vehicle. Appellants also state that Knecht does not disclose
peaks and valleys all in the same plane since the peaks and
valleys are in numerous planes as shown in Figure 2 of Knecht.
Appellants argue that Rodgers teaches that the filter media
should be above the frame, thus teaching away from the claimed
concept of positioning the valleys below the frame.
For the reasons already discussed in this decision, the
orientation of the mounting frame/filter element is not a
requirement of claim 30, and therefore appellants’ arguments in
connection with this issue are unconvincing.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007