Ex Parte Charin et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 28, 201010419203 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte BRANDON PAUL CHARIN and JOHN CHARLES HOAGLAND ____________________ Appeal 2008-006035 Application 10/419,203 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Decided: May 28, 2010 ____________________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 through 20, which are all of the claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2008-006035 Application 10/419,203 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal is directed to, inter alia, a filter candle hollow core tube. Claims 1, 8, and 18 are illustrative: 1. A filter candle hollow core tube, comprising: an outer surface and an inner surface and having a longitudinal axis, wherein said outer surface is formed in pleats aligned in parallel with said longitudinal axis, and wherein said hollow core tube defines a plurality of openings between said outer surface and said inner surface and defines an axial opening at one end. 8. A filter candle apparatus comprising: an elongated screen pack defining an axial opening therethrough; a hollow core tube slidably, removably disposed within said axial opening of said screen pack, wherein said hollow core tube comprises an outer surface and an inner surface and has a longitudinal axis, wherein said outer surface is formed in pleats aligned in parallel with said longitudinal axis, and wherein said hollow core tube defines a plurality of openings between said outer surface and said inner surface and defines an axial opening at one end; and, wherein material can be passed through said screen pack, into said hollow core tube, and out of said axial opening defined by said hollow core tube. 18. A method for filtering a flowable material, comprising: forcing said material through a filter candle apparatus, wherein said apparatus comprises: an elongated screen pack defining an axial opening therethrough; and a hollow core tube slidably, removably disposed within said axial opening of said screen pack, wherein said hollow core tube comprises an outer surface and an inner surface and has a longitudinal axis, wherein said outer surface is formed in pleats aligned in parallel with said longitudinal axis, and wherein said hollow core tube defines a plurality of openings between said outer surface and said inner surface and defines an axial opening at one end. Appeal 2008-006035 Application 10/419,203 3 As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the Examiner relies upon the following references: Cresswell 2,726,769 Dec. 13, 1955 Pistor 2,789,699 Apr. 23, 1957 Kronsbein 4,350,592 Sep. 21, 1982 The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1) Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cresswell; 2) Claims 1-4, 8, 14-16, 18, and 19 under § 102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pistor; 3) Claims 5-7 and 17 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pistor; and 4) Claims 9-13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pistor and Kronsbein. REJECTION (1) With respect to the § 102 rejection, the Examiner finds Cresswell teaches a filter candle hollow core tube having the "pleats aligned in parallel with said longitudinal axis" feature required by claim 1 since Cresswell teaches that "notches create pleats between passageways (25) on its outer surface and aligned in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the core (10)." (Ans. 9). We disagree with the Examiner for the reasons stated by Appellants at pages 5 and 6 of the Brief. In this regard, Appellants correctly state that Cresswell’s ring- shaped raised areas form a raised thread that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Br. 6). Thus, it follows that the Examiner erred in Appeal 2008-006035 Application 10/419,203 4 finding that Cresswell teaches a filter candle hollow core tube having the "pleats aligned in parallel with said longitudinal axis" feature required by claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4 under § 102(b) over Cresswell. With respect to the § 103 rejection, because the Examiner relies on the same findings discussed above and does not provide a reason for modifying Cresswell to arrive at the filter candle hollow core tube having the disputed claim feature required by claim 1, then we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4 under § 103(a) over Cresswell. REJECTIONS (2)-(4) ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Pistor teaches the "outer surface is formed in pleats" feature required by claims 1, 8, and 18? We decide this issue in the negative.1 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office Action as our own, except for those findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows. 1 Appellants focus their arguments on the pleats features of independent claims 1, 8, and 18 (App. Br. 7-10). Appeal 2008-006035 Application 10/419,203 5 We begin by noting that the Specification defines a "pleat" as "any outward projection, as viewed in cross section, formed on the regular outer surface 54 of the hollow core tube 48." (Spec. 6). In this regard, Appellants' Figure 3 illustrates the formation of pleats 53 (i.e., outward projections that appear as peaks) necessarily form valleys positioned between two adjacent pleats 53. Likewise, Appellants' Figure 3 illustrates the formation of valleys necessarily forms pleats 53 between two adjacent valleys. With respect to the § 102 rejection, Appellants argue that Pistor has no pleats whatsoever, as that term is used throughout the claims and specification of the present application (Br. 7-8). While it is true that Pistor at column 1, lines 59-60 states that "a plurality of grooves [are] formed on and around its [i.e., the filter core's] periphery longitudinally of the core," we agree with the Examiner's finding that "Pistor teaches that longitudinal grooves (9) are formed in the outer surface of the core (3) . . . Such grooves form pleats between grooves (9) on its outer surface as shown in the protruded lands between grooves (9)." (Ans. 5). Indeed, Pistor's Figure 2, like Appellants' Figure 3, illustrates the formation of grooves 9 (inward projections that appear as valleys), which necessarily forms peaks or outward projections between two adjacent grooves 9. In addition, Appellants argue that "Figure 4 in Pistor clearly shows . . . that the tube in Pistor would be incapable of performing the inventive function of the hollow core tube of the present invention: to provide superior support to the screen pack filter." (Br. 8). We find this argument unpersuasive of reversible error because the "support to the screen pack filter" feature is not required by any of the Appeal 2008-006035 Application 10/419,203 6 claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (holding that “[m]any of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims. . . .”). Thus, Appellants' argument directed to this unclaimed feature is unpersuasive of reversible error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4, 8, 14-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Pistor. With respect to the § 103 rejection, Appellants refer to their arguments made in connection with the § 102 rejection (i.e., that Pistor does not teach the pleats feature) and further argue that one of ordinary skill would not have modified Pistor to employ the pleats feature. (Br. 9-10). We find these arguments unpersuasive of reversible error because, in reference to our above discussion, Pistor teaches the disputed claim feature. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4, 8, 14-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pistor. With respect to rejections (3) and (4), Appellants repeat arguments made in connection with rejection (2). (Br. 7-10). For the reasons discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive of reversible error. In addition, with respect to rejection (4), Appellants argue that "the rejections over Pistor in view of Kronsbein are improper because there is no motivation to combine the teachings." (Br. 10). Appellants, however, do not specifically dispute and thus have not identified error in the Examiner’s case based upon employing Kronsbein's gaskets at both ends of Pistor's screen pack and pleats in order "to seal [the] screen pack to the hollow core tube as suggested by Kronsbein." (Compare Ans. 7 with Br. 4-10). Appeal 2008-006035 Application 10/419,203 7 Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments fail to identify error in the Examiner’s stated case and thus are unpersuasive of reversible error. ORDER In summary, we reverse the Examiner's rejection (1) and sustain the Examiner's rejections (2) through (4). Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(2009). AFFIRMED cam HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, PC 530 VIRGINIA ROAD P O BOX 9133 CONCORD, MA 01742-9133 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation