Appeal No. 2004-2193 Page 2
Application No. 09/737,781
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an air filtering means (claims 1-7, 10 and 11)
and a method for filtering air (claims 8, 9 and 12). An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 5, which appears in the appendix to
the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi) 5,046,976 Sep. 10, 1991
Uhl 5,522,355 Jun. 4, 1996
Lenczuk 5,826,414 Oct. 27, 1998
Busboom et al. (Busboom) 6,105,349 Aug. 22, 2000
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) Claims 5, 6, 8 and 9 on the basis of Busboom in view of Kobayashi.
(2) Claims 1-3 and 7 on the basis of Busboom in view of Kobayashi and Uhl.
(3) Claims 4 and 10 on the basis of Busboom in view of Kobayashi, Uhl and Lenczuk.
(4) Claims 11 and 12 on the basis of Busboom in view of Kobayashi and Lenczuk.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 17 [sic, 18]) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 16) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007