Appeal No. 2003-0318
Application 09/377,262
identify a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of
the cited references to achieve the claimed invention. In re
Kotzab 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir.
2000). “[P]articular findings must be made as to the reason to
skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention,
would have selected these components for combination in the
manner claimed.” Id., 217 F.3d at 1371, 55 USPQ2d at 1317. For
the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the examiner has
simply failed to satisfy this initial burden.
The examiner found that Jones discloses an oily-mist
resistant electret filter as claimed, with the exception that
Jones fails to disclose two electret layers. Examiner’s answer,
paper no. 11, mailed September 11, 2002, page 3, paragraph (10).
The examiner notes that Singer teaches a breathing mask fabric
having first and second electret treated microfiber webs. The
examiner conclude that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to have used the teaching of two
electret filter layers as shown in Singer et al. with the
electret filter of Jones et al. motivated by the desire to obtain
a filter with increased filtering efficiency.” Id.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007