Appeal No. 2002-0416
Application 08/902,625
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims
30-32 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Knecht in view of Thorman.
VI. The rejection of claims 30-35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Knecht in view of Rodgers
We consider claims 30 and 33 in this rejection.
We refer to our comments in Section V, above, and make the
same determinations, for claims 30 and 33 in this rejection
(reversal).
Our comments made in Section V regarding Thorman equally
apply to Rodgers. We note that Rodgers discusses a filter
material useable in an air filter device or in an oil filter
device (column 1, lines 28-30). However, as stated in Section V,
the examiner has not addressed the aforementioned deficiencies of
Knecht, e.g., does not explain how Rodgers make obvious the
modification of all of the differences of Knecht to arrive at
appellants’ claimed invention.
VII. The rejection of claims 30-32 and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers in view of Thorman
We consider claim 30 in this rejection.
On page 10 of the brief, appellants again submit that the
rejection is erroneous because it ignores the limitations to the
transmission pan and vehicle. On page 9 of the answer, the
examiner again takes the position that with regard to claims 30
and 31 the limitations to the transmission pan and vehicle relate
to intended use and therefore carry no patentable weight.
For the reasons already discussed in this decision, the
orientation of the mounting frame/filter element is not a
requirement of claim 30.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007