Ex Parte Charin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 2010

10419203 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2010)

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