Appeal 2007-3583
Application 10/238,147
With regard to Appellant’s argument concerning claim 24 (Br. 5), we
determine that Kidd does disclose engaging an annular lip with an annular
cap protrusion (see factual finding (1) listed above). With regard to the
argument concerning claim 33 (Br. 5), we determine that Kidd does disclose
a cover over the filter element in the cap (see factual finding (1) listed
above). With regard to the argument concerning claims 34 and 35 (Br. 6),
we note that the Examiner has taken notice of the conventionality of O-rings
and gaskets for sealing purposes (Answer 7). We further note that Appellant
has not challenged this notice in the Reply Brief. Accordingly, we accept
this assertion as fact. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091-92, 165, USPQ
418, 420 (CCPA 1970). With regard to the argument concerning claim 30,
we determine that neither Kidd nor Gamble specifically discloses a sheet of
filter elements. However, whether individual filters were disposed in each
cap or a sheet of filters was employed to accomplish the same function as
the individual filters would have been within the ordinary skill in this art,
especially in view of the teaching in Gamble of the alternative use of an
individual cap, a strip of caps, or a sheet of caps (see factual finding (4)
listed above).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the sole ground of rejection presented in this appeal. The decision of the
Examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013