Appeal 2007-1399
Application 10/013,123
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
Jackson, like Appellants, "discloses forming a filter by folding a piece of
filter with the pleats running perpendicular to the longitudinal direction,
forming it into an annulus with the pleats extending radially, and bonding
the ends of the filter together" (Answer 3, citing Jackson at col. 1, ll. 38-47,
and col. 3, ll. 36-40). As acknowledged by the Examiner, Jackson then
positions a core into the center of the formed filter and forms a seal to the
core, unlike the claimed method of first wrapping the filter around the core
and joining first and second folds of the filter sheet. However, we fully
concur with the Examiner that Shikaya and Bauer '604 evidence the
obviousness of employing Appellants' wrapping method as an alternative to
Jackson's placing a core into an already formed filter having a central
aperture.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that Shikaya
discloses alternative methods of joining a pleated or corrugated cover to a
central core comprising either inserting the core into a pre-made cover or
winding the cover around a central core. Nor do Appellants dispute the
Examiner's finding that Bauer '604 discloses wrapping a filter around a core
(see Fig. 2). It is Appellants' contention that Shikaya is directed to a method
of making a liquid-tight cup and not a filter and, therefore, "one skilled in
the art of filter manufacture would not have looked to the cup forming
teachings of Shikaya" (Principal Br. 7, second para.).
In essence, it is Appellants' position that Shikaya is not combinable
with Jackson since it is non-analogous art. However, it is well-settled that
prior art is analogous if the references are directed to the same field of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013