Appeal No. 2005-1943
Application No. 09/091,508
Appellants also argue that Pall ‘923 teaches that filter
elements 15 and 16 are biased away from one another, and that
therefore one skilled in the art would never secure the end caps
of the upper and lower elements to one another. Reply Brief,
page 2. We are not convinced by this argument either. The fact
remains that Pall ‘923 teaches that end caps 18 and 25 are
provided with a central aperture communicating in the central
open area enclosed by the primary reserve filter elements 15 and
16, and together constituting the central passage 5. See column
3, lines 37-40. Such an arrangement forms a hollow separation
arrangement, as explained by the examiner.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 14-18 as being obvious over Pall ‘923
in view of Stoyell, Pall ‘012, and Driscoll.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 19 as being obvious
over Pall ‘923 in view of Stoyell, Pall ‘012, Driscoll,
further in view of Pall ‘881
Appellants do not separately argue this rejection in the
brief or reply brief. Because the claims fall with claim 1, we
also affirm this rejection for the same reasons that we affirmed
the rejection involving claim 1.
III. CONCLUSION
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007