Ex Parte Driml et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2010

10979390 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREG DRIML and STEVEN J. MERRITT
____________

Appeal 2009-014132
Application 10/979,390
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: March 30, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 19-33 and 45-50.
Claim 19 is illustrative:
19. An apparatus for forming a filter media including a gathered
sheet of porous filter material, the apparatus comprising:
a first and a second gathering roller, each including an outer
periphery thereof having a plurality of circumferentially spaced round ended
protrusions extending radially outward therefrom;
the first and second gathering rollers being mounted for rotation
in spaced and timed relationship to one another such that the protrusions of
Appeal 2009-014132
Application 10/979,390

2
one gathering roller are disposed between adjacent protrusions, of the other
gathering roller, grooves being defined between adjacent protrusions, for
forming gathers without folding or pleating in a sheet of porous filter
material fed between the first and second gathering rollers, with the
protrusions and outer peripheries of the first and second gathering rollers
configured and spaced from one another such that the sheet of porous filter
material is not compressed between any portion of the protrusions of the first
gathering roller and any portion of the protrusions of the second gathering
roller, and wherein the protrusions of each gathering roller do not seat at the
bottoms of the grooves of the other gathering roller.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Langston 1,186,997 Jun. 13, 1916
Bauer 3,025,963 Mar. 20, 1962
Miller 5,609,711 Mar. 11, 1997

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to an apparatus for forming a
filter media comprising a gathered sheet of porous filter material. The
apparatus comprises first and second gathering rollers each having
protrusions on their outer peripheries, with grooves being defined between
adjacent protrusions. In order that the filter material is not compressed by
folding or pleating the material, the protrusions of each gathering roller do
not seat at the bottoms of the grooves of the other gathering roller.
Appealed claims 19-32 and 45-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Langston. Claim 33 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Langston in view of Bauer.
Claims 48-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Langston in view of Miller.
Appeal 2009-014132
Application 10/979,390

3
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s rejections are not sustainable.
Langston describes an apparatus for making corrugated paper
comprising rollers 12 and 13 which have protrusions on the peripheries and
grooves adjacent the protrusions. However, we agree with Appellants that
Langston does not describe that the protrusions do not seat at the bottom of
the grooves of the opposite roller. As emphasized by Appellants, Langston
expressly discloses “[t]he springs seat the flanges (protrusions) of each roller
at the bottoms of the grooves of the other so that the paper is pressed as it is
being corrugated”(page 1, 92-95).
It is the Examiner’s position that the protrusions of Langston’s
apparatus “do not seat at the bottom of the grooves of the other gathering
roller, if this is desired, because the roller 12 is adjustable since it is mounted
in a sliding bearing 18 movable toward and from the axis of roller 13 (see
page 1, ll. 74-90)” (Ans. 3, first para.). The Examiner further explains that
“the rollers [of Langston] can be configured and spaced from one another
such that the sheet of filter material is not compressed and the protrusions of
one roller do not seat at the bottom of the grooves of the other rollers” (Ans.
10, first paragraph, last sentence).
The flaw in the Examiner’s position is that Langston provides no
disclosure that the rollers can be configured in such a way that the
protrusions do not seat at the bottom of the grooves. While Langston
discloses that roller 12 is movable toward and from the axis of roller 13,
there is no disclosure that the roller 12 is movable to a position such that its
protrusions are not seated at the bottoms of the grooves of roller 13. While
Appeal 2009-014132
Application 10/979,390

4
Langston teaches that the tension of coil springs 19 may be increased or
decreased to increase or decrease the pressure between the protrusions and
the grooves, there is no disclosure that the tension of the springs can be
decreased to a level wherein no pressure is exerted between the rollers on the
material to be corrugated. Indeed, the entire purpose of the Langston
apparatus is to corrugate paper. We note that the Examiner has made no
rejection based on the rationale that it would have been obvious to modify
the distance between Langston’s rollers 12 and 13 to effect a non-corrugated
pattern on the paper.
We also agree with Appellants that Langston provides no description
that the protrusions are spaced from one another in such a way that a sheet of
filter material is not compressed between any portion of the protrusions of
the first gathering roller and any portion of the protrusions of the second
gathering roller. Again, the protrusions of Langston’s rollers are arranged to
effect compression of the paper into a corrugated pattern. The Examiner has
not made the case that the use of any conventionally gauged paper used in
the apparatus of Langston would avoid compression.
The Examiner’s additional citation of Bauer and Miller does not
remedy the deficiency of Langston set forth above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection.
REVERSED

tc

Appeal 2009-014132
Application 10/979,390

5

REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107