Appeal No. 2003-0505 Page 6
Application No. 08/527,679
contained therein, and the overriding question to be determined is whether those concepts would
suggest to one skilled in the art the modification called for by the claims.”).
Nehls contains a suggestion for tapering holes in a filter. According to Nehls, tapering
the holes in a filter will assist cleaning and filter cake release. Cleaning and filter cake release
are concerns relevant to the filter device of DE 374. Nehls provides a reason, suggestion or
motivation for tapering the holes of DE 374.
There is also a reasonable expectation of success. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is
a reasonable expectation of success.”). The various cleaning methods of the two references
empoly the same or similar mechanisms to acheive cleaning. Whether by backwashing,
bumping, ultrasonic cleaning or hot water cleaning; vibration and/or water impact loosen the
filter cake from the inlet side of the filter so that the sediment or sludge can be removed. It is the
presence of the larger diameter at the inlet side and the smaller diameter at the exit side that
assists release (Nehls at col. 3, ll. 6-10). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect
that holes in the DE 374 device with a larger opening on the inlet side and smaller opening on the
exit side would assist cleaning in the same way as it does in the process of Nehls.
With regard to claim 3, Appellant argues that the prior art does not suggest spacing the
holes from each other by a distance which is 1-3 times the diameter of the holes. However, DE
374 expressly teaches such a spacing. See page 6, lines 15-16 which state: “The holes 24 are set
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007