Appeal 2006-2578
Application 09/811,970
We AFFIRM.
The Appellants invented a filtration device. With reference to Figure
2, the device comprises at least one plastic well 14 having one or more holes
in the bottom thereof, a filter 12 positioned against the bottom of each well
and a continuous roll of inner wall material 11, 13 of the well positioned
against a top 15 of the filter to hold the filter in place. The filtration device
is defined in representative independent claim 1 as follows:
1. A filtration device comprising at least one well, each well having
an open top and a closed bottom having one or more holes which
allow liquid to pass through and an inner wall, at least one piece of
filter positioned within each well and against the bottom of each
well and a continuous roll of inner wall material of the well
positioned against a top of the filter to hold the at least one filter
piece in place and said well being formed of a plastic.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in the § 102 and § 103
rejections before us are set forth below:
Bowers US 5,108,704 Apr. 28, 1992
Aysta US 5,264,184 Nov. 23, 1993
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bowers, and claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Aysta.1
1 Only independent claims 1 and 26 have been separately grouped and
argued by Appellants (Br. 3, 4, 6). Accordingly, the dependent claims on
appeal, including separately rejected claim 24, will stand or fall with these
independent claims.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013