Donaldson Company, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2021

2021000729 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
15/990,015 05/25/2018 Thomas D. Raether 00758.2304USC3 7173
117527 7590 12/16/2021
Merchant & Gould Donaldson
P.O. Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
MCKENZIE, THOMAS B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1776
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2021 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 THOMAS D. RAETHER
Appeal 2021-000729
Application 15/990,015
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Donaldson Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000729
Application 15/990,015

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods of installing a filter element into a
dust collector. See Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App., claim 1).
Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter
and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized:
1. A method of installing a filter element into a dust
collector, the method comprising:
(a) providing a dust collector having a dirty air inlet, a
clean air outlet, an interior volume, a tubesheet in the interior
volume having a plurality of openings, and a plurality of
blowpipes to direct a fluid pulse at a downstream flow face of a
filter element; each of the blowpipes being oriented relative to a
plane containing the tubesheet openings such that the fluid pulse
from each blowpipe is at an angle non-orthogonal to the plane
and not in line with a direction of filtration flow through the filter
element; and
(b) positioning the filter element in the dust collector by
orienting the downstream flow face of the filter element in one
of the openings to be even with or less than 0.5 inches recessed
from the tubesheet.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

The Examiner rejects claims 1–9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Koch2 and Evans3 or Cole,4
either with or without additional prior art. Final Act. 2–11.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R.

2 US 4,303,417, issued December 1, 1981.
3 US 2,792,906, issued May 21, 1957.
4 US 4,637,300, issued January 20, 1987.
Appeal 2021-000729
Application 15/990,015

3
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima
facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”).
Appellant addresses the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and relies
upon these arguments for dependent claims 2–9. Appeal Br. 10–12. We,
therefore, focus our discussion on this claim.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner’s claim
construction of the terms “dust collector” and “dirty air inlet” recited in
claim 1 is unreasonably broad. Upon consideration of Appellant’s
arguments in light of the evidence in the appeal record, we determine that
Appellant has identified no error in the Examiner’s claim construction. We
therefore affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1–9 for the reasons
expressed by the Examiner. Final Act. 2–14; Ans. 3–19. We add the
following for emphasis.
Appellant asserts that Koch’s paint booth “is not a dust collector,”
because it “cannot fall within the ordinary meaning of” this term. Appeal
Br. 11. Appellant focuses on the purportedly different uses of a dust
collector and a paint booth for support. Id. at 11–12. Appellant also argues
that Koch does not teach a “dirty air inlet.” Id. at 12.
Appellant’s arguments are not well-taken because Appellant fails to
point to any such “ordinary meaning” of the terms “dust collector” or “dirty
air inlet” that would distinguish these claim terms over the structure
disclosed in the applied prior art.
Appeal 2021-000729
Application 15/990,015

4
Moreover, Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that
outside air containing dust enters Koch’s opening 26 and is collected by
Koch’s filter panels 70 contained in booth 12. See Final Act. 13 (finding
that Koch’s “filter panels 70 will remove dust contained in this outside air
because the filter panels are configured to remove fine particulate matter
(i.e., powder) from air within the spray booth 12.”); Ans. 18.
Because Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, we sustain that rejection, along with the rejections of
claims 2–9 not separately argued.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103(a) Koch, Evans, Cole 1, 2
2–4 103(a) Koch, Cole, Kirsch  2–4
5, 7 103(a) Koch, Cole, Kirsch,
Silvera, Gillingham
5, 7
6, 8 103(a) Koch, Cole, Kirsch,
Gillingham
6, 8
9 103(a) Koch, Cole 9
Overall
Outcome
1–9

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