Appeal No. 2006-1076
Application No. 10/147,252
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Pall teaches the invention as
claimed with the exception of using a laser beam as a heat source. In determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the relevant inquiry is “whether the person of ordinary skill in the art,
possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the
general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination recited in the
claims.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To support a
rejection on obviousness grounds, the examiner must provide a detailed analysis of the prior art
and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the knowledge and
motivation to make the claimed invention. See id.
We find that the examiner has properly set forth detailed facts and reasons in the Final
Rejection which support his conclusion of obviousness. The examiner found that both Gordon
and Pall address the same problem of securing a filter media to an end cap by heating a
thermoplastic material. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 6 ). The examiner further determined that:
it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the
invention to use the laser of Gordon in the fusing step of Pall since (i) Gordon
teaches the benefit of fusing the same material as Pall (i.e. a thermoplastic
polymer) to create a sealed filter media; (ii) Pall teaches that his fusing means can
be “any conventional heat source” (col. 4, lines 17-20); and (iii) the benefit of
lasers for precisely directing a beam only where needed is well known.
Final Rejection, p. 5 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Gordon and Pall because they relate to different types of structures and,
Page 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007