Appeal No. 2006-1076
Application No. 10/147,252
therefore, address different types of problems. Appellants identify, inter alia, the following
structural differences:
(1) Gordon’s microsieve is extremely thin in comparison to Pall’s filter.
(2) Gordon’s microsieve filters objects flowing axially between top and bottom surfaces.
Pall’s filter element filters objects flowing radially.
(3) Gordon’s support member holds the entire microsieve in a well, thereby blocking
radial flow. Pall’s end caps only attach to the ends of the filter element thereby allowing radial
flow. Appellants maintain that given these differences, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have looked to Gordon to find a heat source for securing the inside bottom face of Pall’s end cap
to the open end of Pall’s filter element.
Appellants further argue that even if a laser were applied to Pall’s end cap in the manner
taught by Gordon, the leak-proof seal required by Pall would not necessarily be formed. Appeal
Brief, p. 5. Appellants note, in particular, that Gordon directs a laser beam at an upper edge of
the support structure while the microsieve is positioned therein to create a gravity-induced
downward flow of material onto the top surface and peripheral edge of the microsieve.
Appellants maintain that application of a laser beam to the upper edges of Pall’s end cap as
taught by Gordon would fail to heat and liquefy the inside bottom face of Pall’s end cap and,
further, create an undesirable downward flow of material over the sides of Pall’s filter, inhibiting
radial flow of fluid through the filter. Appeal Brief, p. 5.
Page 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007