Ex Parte Bagci et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2011

11264473 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2011)

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.
11/264,473 11/01/2005 Ismail C. Bagci 20069.0089US01 5658
52835 7590 01/14/2011
HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
P.O. BOX 2902
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0902
EXAMINER
KURTZ, BENJAMIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1772
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ISMAIL C. BAGCI, KEVIN C. SOUTH, and JEFFREY B.
SHARP
________________

Appeal 2010-001386
Application 11/264,473
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-001386
Application 11/264,473

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 10, 14-17, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28-33. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appellants claim a fluid filter assembly 20 comprising a shell 21, a
fluid filter cartridge 22, and externally radially accessible positioning means
which includes first forms 42, 43 and second forms 46, the first and second
forms being constructed and arranged to cooperatively interfit axially with
each other for fixing the axial depth of the fluid filter cartridge into the shell
(claim 1; figs. 1-6).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A fluid filter assembly for the processing of a
circulating fluid, said fluid filter comprising:
a shell including a substantially closed base and a
sidewall that defines an interior space and an entrance opening
at one end of said shell, said sidewall including an exposed
uppermost edge adjacent said entrance opening;
a fluid filter cartridge installed into said shell resulting
from insertion of said fluid filter cartridge into said interior
space via said entrance opening, said fluid filter cartridge
including a filtering media element and an endplate that is
attached to one end of said filtering media element;
externally radially accessible positioning means for
fixing the axial depth of said fluid filter cartridge into said shell,
said positioning means including a p1urality of axially open
first forms formed as part of said exposed uppermost edge and a
plurality of second forms configured as part of said endplate,
said first forms and said second forms being constructed and
arranged to cooperatively interfit axially with each other for
fixing said axial depth of said fluid filter cartridge into said
shell; and
Appeal 2010-001386
Application 11/264,473

3
a plurality of flow channels, each flow channel being
defined between an outer perimeter of the endplate and a
radially inner surface of the sidewall between each pair of
adjacent cooperatively interfit first forms and second forms.

The Examiner rejects:
claims 1-3, 14-16, 21, 23, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Stockbower (WO 03/082434 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003);
claims 4-7, 9, 10, 24, 26, and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
unpatentable over Stockbower in view of Stankowski (US 6,635,175 B2,
issued Oct. 21, 2003);
claims 17 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stockbower in view of Wolf (US 2006/0180539 A1, published Aug. 17,
2006); and
claims 14, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or
alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Gundrum (US
2003/0196947 A1, published Oct. 23, 2003).
(Ans. 3-10).

Appellants' arguments are limited to assertions that various claim
limitations are not taught by Stockbower or Gundrum (Br. 10-19). The
Examiner has responded to each of these arguments with a rational and
detailed explanation of why the argued limitations are satisfied by either
Stockbower or Gundrum (Ans. 11-16). Appellants have filed no Reply Brief
presenting arguments that the Examiner's explanation is erroneous.
Accordingly, the record before us contains no rebuttal by Appellants of the
Appeal 2010-001386
Application 11/264,473

4
Examiner's reasons for considering Appellants' arguments to be
unpersuasive.
Under these circumstances, we sustain each the above noted rejections
for the reasons well stated by the Examiner in the Answer.

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

bar

HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
P.O. BOX 2902
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0902