Appeal No. 2005-1943
Application No. 09/091,508
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief and reply
brief, the examiner’s answer (mailed September 9, 2004), and the
evidence of record. This review has led us to the following
determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 14 through 18
as being obvious over Pall ‘923 in view of Stoyell, Pall
‘012, and Driscoll
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 5-6 of the answer mailed September 9, 2004.
The examiner’s basic position is that Pall ‘923 teaches many
features of appellants’ claimed invention, but does not teach (1)
a pleat having a height h greater than D-d/2 where D is the outer
diameter at the outer periphery of the plurality of pleats, and
(2) the first and second end caps including polymeric or
elastomeric material, and one of the first and second end caps
comprising a seal having an outside diameter greater than the
largest outside diameter of the hollow separation arrangement.
The examiner relies upon Stoyell for teaching these missing
elements. Answer, page 6.
On page 7 of the answer, the examiner also states that the
combination of Pall ‘923 and Stoyell fails to disclose the length
of the hollow separation arrangement and the interior diameter
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007