Donaldson Company, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2021

2020006669 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/978,703 05/14/2018 Philip E. Johnson 00758.2029USC2 6948
117527 7590 10/18/2021
Merchant & Gould Donaldson
P.O. Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
KURTZ, BENJAMIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1778
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO117527@merchantgould.com
donaldson_docketing@cardinal-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP E. JOHNSON, CLAUDIO FORMICA, ENRICO GRECO,
MICHAEL L. BROWN, and JOHN R. HACKER
Appeal 2020-006669
Application 15/978,703
Technology Center 1700

Before TERRY J. OWENS, SHELDON M. McGEE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Donaldson Company Inc.
(Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2020-006669
Application 15/978,703

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a spin-on filter cartridge and a filter
assembly. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A spin-on filter cartridge comprising:
(a) a single-piece housing having a closed end, an open end,
and an interior volume;
(b) a cylindrical filter element operably oriented in the
housing interior volume and defining an open filter
interior;
(i) the filter element including first and second end
caps at opposite ends;
(ii) an extension of media being between the first and
second end caps;
(c) a baffle plate secured to the housing at the housing open
end;
(i) the housing being around and against an outer
periphery of the baffle plate and having a fold over
an upper surface of the baffle plate to non-
removably secure the baffle plate to the housing;
(ii) the baffle plate having a central hub defining a
central flow aperture forming an outlet
arrangement;
(iii) the baffle plate defining an inlet arrangement
including a plurality of fluid apertures
circumscribing and being disposed radially
outward of the central flow aperture;
(iv) the baffle plate defining a circular groove
immediately adjacent to and forming part of the
central flow aperture;
(A) the groove defining a radial sealing
surface and a support surface; the
support surf ace intersecting the radial
surface; the groove being seal
member free and constructed to
receive a seal member from an
operably placed filter head;
Appeal 2020-006669
Application 15/978,703

3
(B) the support surface of the groove
facing a direction opposite of the
open filter interior;
(d) a seal arrangement secured to the baffle plate spaced
from and circumscribing the groove, the inlet
arrangement, and the outlet arrangement;
(i) the support surface of the groove being located
axially closer to the closed end of the housing than
the seal arrangement is located axially relative to
the closed end of the housing; and
(ii) the seal arrangement facing a direction opposite of
the open filter interior.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gulsvig US 5,395,518 Mar. 7, 1995
Oelschlaegel US 6,146,527 Nov. 14, 2000
REJECTION
Claims 1–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gulsvig in
view of Oelschlaegel.
OPINION
The Appellant argues the claims as a group (Appeal Br. 15–19). We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2–17 stand
or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
Gulsvig discloses a spin-on filter (10) comprising a filter housing (20)
and a cover (12) (which the Examiner relies upon as a baffle plate (Final 2))
having a rim (18) at which the cover (12) mounts to the filter housing (20)
(col. 3, ll. 34–39; Fig 2). The cover (12) has a central hub (14) with an axial
bore (94) extending therethrough (col. 3, ll. 63–64; Fig. 1).
Appeal 2020-006669
Application 15/978,703

4
Oelschlaegel discloses a spin-on filter cartridge (10) comprising a
filter housing (12) that has a main housing portion (32) with an inner annular
lip (44), encloses a replaceable filter element (14) having a first end
cap (66), and is removably mountable to a base (16) (col. 3, ll. 61–63; col. 4,
ll. 6–7; Figs. 1, 2). A disk-shaped mounting hub (102) (which the Examiner
relies upon as corresponding to the Appellant’s baffle plate (Final 3)) is
disposed between the filter element (14)’s first end cap (66) and the main
housing portion (32)’s inner annular lip (44) (col. 6, ll. 5–8; Fig. 2). The
mounting hub (102) has a central annular collar (103) with a threaded outer
portion (126) having around it a shallow counterbore which receives a
resilient O-ring seal that provides a fluid-tight seal between the collar (103)
and the base (16) (col. 6, ll. 54–65; Fig. 2).
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Appellant argues that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the Appellant’s claim term “filter cartridge”
consistent with the Appellant’s Specification requires the baffle plate to be
replaceable with the spent filter media (Appeal Br. 16). Thus, the Appellant
argues, because Oelschlaegel’s mounting hub (102) remains attached to the
filter housing (12) and is reused when the filter element (14) is replaced
(col. 3, ll. 10–20), the Appellant’s claim term “filter cartridge” does not
encompass Oelschlaegel’s filter cartridge (Appeal Br. 16).
In support of that argument, the Appellant relies (Appeal Br. 16) upon
the Appellant’s Specification’s Background section which states, regarding
prior art spin-on filter assemblies (Spec.1:20–24):
Appeal 2020-006669
Application 15/978,703

5
The filter cartridge will typically include an outer can or
housing holding a filter element of filter media therewithin. The
filter cartridge is typically useable over some limited duration
due to the limited life of the filter media within. The filter
cartridge is removed from the filter head and disposed of and is
then replaced with a new filter cartridge.
That disclosure points out some typical characteristics of prior art
filter cartridges, but does not provide a definition for the Appellant’s claim
term “filter cartridge” that requires all parts of it to be disposable. Thus, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellant’s claim term “filter
cartridge” consistent with the Appellant’s Specification encompasses
Oelschlaegel’s filter cartridge.
The Appellant argues that Oelschlaegel’s shallow counterbore which
receives a resilient O-ring seal that provides a fluid-tight seal between the
collar (103) and the base (16) (col. 6, ll. 54–65) does not have a radial
sealing surface (Appeal Br. 17–18). In support of that argument, the
Appellant relies upon an enlargement of Oelschlaegel’s Figure 2 which, the
Appellant argues, shows within the oval added to the figure by the
Appellant, a gap between the O-ring seal and the outside of the shallow
counterbore (Appeal Br. 18).
The Appellant’s argued gap appears to be part of an undescribed
rectangular piece that extends behind the counterbore vertically to the top of
the O-ring seal and horizontally to about the middle of the O-ring seal.
Oelschlaegel does not describe or show a gap between the O-ring seal and
the outside surface of the counterbore. Moreover, Oelschlaegel’s disclosure
that the counterbore receives the O-ring seal to provide a fluid-tight seal
between the collar (103) and the base (16) indicates that the O-ring seal fits
tightly against all counterbore surfaces (col. 6, ll. 54–65).
Appeal 2020-006669
Application 15/978,703

6
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 103(a) Gulsvig,
Oelschlaegel
1–17
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED