Ex Parte Lopez

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 31, 2008

10938007 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GERARDO VELAZQUEZ LOPEZ
____________

Appeal 2008-3933
Application 10/938,007
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: October 31, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-10 and 22.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of filtering particulate from a liquid media comprising:

supplying a filter media of a type supported in a flow passage which is
used to filter particulate from the liquid; wherein the filter media is
comprised of at least two fabrics, a first top fabric comprised of non-woven
synthetic fibers and a second bottom fabric comprised of yarn pre-designed
Appeal 2008-3933
Application 10/938,007

into a shaped porous support layer, the first and second fabrics lying
substantially on top of each other and bound together to form a continuous
loop filter media;

passing the continuous loop filter media into a first stage comprised of
liquid and waste particulate generated from metal working and filtering at
least a portion of the particulate therefrom onto the non-woven fabric of the
continuous loop filter media;

passing the continuous loop filter media with the filtered particulate
thereon to a removal stage wherein at least a portion of the filtered
particulate is separated from the continuous loop filter media; and

passing the continuous loop filter media, after removal of at least a
portion of the filtered particulate, back to the first stage.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of
obviousness:
Markwick US 3,706,378 Dec. 19, 1972
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method of filtering
particulate from a liquid media. The method employs a filter media
comprising at least a first top fabric of non-woven synthetic fibers and a
second bottom fabric comprising yarn. The first and second fabrics lie on
top of each other and are bound together to form a continuous loop filter
media.
Appealed claims 1-10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Markwick.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
the Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find that the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject
matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
2
Appeal 2008-3933
Application 10/938,007

There is no dispute that Markwick discloses a filter media for
removing particulate from a liquid media comprising filter medium 64 on
top of filter screen 50, which screen may be a metal wire, mesh, or plastic
mesh. It is the Examiner's position that "screen 50 of Markwick is seen to
constitute the 'bottom fabric'" (Ans. 5, ll. 2-3).
We, like Appellant, do not agree with the Examiner that screen 50 of
Markwick corresponds to the presently claimed second bottom fabric
comprised of yarn. Markwick expressly teaches that screen 50 is a mesh
made of metal or plastic, and the Examiner has not made out the case that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably considered a wire or
plastic mesh to correspond to yarn. Nor has the Examiner made the case that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the
claimed yarn for the metal or plastic mesh of the reference. Also, while the
Examiner points to claims 8-10 on appeal which recite woven fabric, knit
fabric, and extruded fabric, respectively, we find no basis for the Examiner's
rationale that claims 8-10 somehow undermine Appellant's intent to be
limited by the recitation of "yarn" in claim 1. (See Ans. 4, third para.). The
term "yarn" is generally understood to mean threads spun from wool or other
fibrous material that is used for weaving or knitting, and the Examiner has
set forth no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the
claimed yarn to encompass the wire and plastic mesh of Markwick. We also
note that the Examiner has not advanced the rationale that it would have
been a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a
plurality of filter medium 64 of the type disclosed by Markwick.

3
Appeal 2008-3933
Application 10/938,007

In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's rejection.
REVERSED

cam

REISING, ETHINGTON, BARNES, KISSELLE, PC
P O BOX 4390
TROY MI 48099-4390
4