Appeal No. 2005-0583
Application No. 10/116,494
OPINION
We will sustain each of the aforementioned rejections except
for the section 102 rejection of claim 14 as being anticipated by
Hayes. Our reasons follow.
The section 102 rejections
It is undisputed that each of Wilkes and Hayes discloses a
swimming pool filter apparatus having an externally actuatable
venting mechanism for reducing pressure or vacuum in the filter
apparatus. According to the examiner, the filter apparatus of
Wilkes and Hayes functions to trap debris and therefore satisfies
structurally and functionally the “debris trap” limitation of
appealed independent claim 1. We agree.
In support of his contrary view, the appellant argues that
“Persons skilled in the art of designing and manufacturing
swimming pool water cleaning systems understand that swimming
pool debris traps and swimming pool filters are distinct pieces
of hardware performing separate functions” (brief, page 4; also
see brief, page 6). This argument is not well taken. In
concept, the swimming pool filter apparatus of Wilkes or Hayes
and the swimming pool debris trap disclosed by appellant both
perform the function of removing solid material or debris from
swimming pool water. As indicated above, the Wilkes or Hayes
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007