Ex parte Van Rossen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2000

08318645 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LEONARD M. VAN ROSSEN
____________
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
____________
HEARD: OCTOBER 11, 2000
____________
Before COHEN, NASE, and JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent
Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
2, 4 through 9, all of the claims remaining in the
application. In an entered amendment after final (Paper No.
21), claim 8 was amended.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a dust bag and to a
method for producing a dust bag. A basic understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1,
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
As indicated on page 2 of the answer (Paper No. 22), a1
final rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was withdrawn by the examiner in view of the entry
of an amendment (Paper No. 21) after final rejection.
2
6, and 8, copies of which appear in the Appendix to the reply
brief (Paper No. 23).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Fesco 3,498,031 Mar. 3, 1970
Gin et al. 4,589,894 May 20,
1986
(Gin)
Bosses 5,080,702 Jan. 14, 1992
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gin in view of
Fesco.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gin in view of Fesco, as applied above,
further in view of Bosses.
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have2
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 17 and 22), while the
complete statement of appellant’s argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 21 and 23).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the2
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
4
We reverse each of the examiner’s rejections of
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claim 1 is drawn to a dust bag comprising,
inter alia, a filter bag having two wall portions, and a
protective layer of an air permeable nonwoven web, the
protective layer being laid on the inner surface of a wall
portion without bonding, wherein the protective layer is in
the form of a protective strip being narrower than the wall
portions with longitudinal ends positioned and welded between
at least the longitudinally opposing interconnected edges of
the wall portions.
Independent claim 6 sets forth a method for producing a
dust bag comprising, inter alia, providing a first web of air-
permeable material and a second web of air-permeable material
narrower than the first web, and cutting off a portion of the
first web with the second web positioned therein, and sealing
the cut off portion at both ends, with the second web being
held at both sealed ends of the cut off portion.
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
5
Independent claim 8 specifies a method for producing a
dust bag comprising, inter alia, providing a first layer of
air-permeable filter material and a second layer of air-
permeable material resistant to mechanical stresses, the
second layer being narrower than the first layer, placing a
third layer of air-permeable filter material on the second
layer, and welding the sequence of layers together along a
continuous edge line.
We fully comprehend the examiner’s assessment of the
applied teachings and how the examiner perceives that the
evidence of obviousness would have been suggestive of the
claimed invention.
However, as more specifically explained below, we are of the
view that, absent appellant’s own teaching and reliance upon
hindsight, the applied patents themselves simply would not
have been suggestive of the claimed dust bag and method.
The Gin patent teaches a filter bag formed by seaming a
suitable layered fabric 50 that includes an inner micro-fiber
layer 51 and first and second outer support layers. The
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
It is worthy of noting that appellant’s protective layer3
38 is indicated to be made of "CEREX" (specification, page 9).
6
patent indicates (column 5, line 47) that the outer layers may
be made of "Cerex". As is quite clear from the Gin document,3
and recognized by the examiner (final rejection, page 3), this
reference is silent on the provision of a narrow protective
strip. On the other hand, the patent to Fesco teaches a
narrow, reinforcing and auxiliary filtering insert 14 of felt-
like material. As seen in Fig. 1, the insert is held in place
with adhesive strips 16, and the patentee expressly points out
(column 3, lines 16 through 20) that the insert does not
extend to either end of the blank to avoid a bulky
construction.
At best, it appears to us that one having ordinary skill
in the art would have viewed the respective teachings of Gin
and Fesco as alternative filter configurations. Thus, if a
narrower insert were desired it would have clearly been
applied by adhesive and spaced from ends of the filter to
effect a less bulky construction, following the teaching of
Fesco. Therefore, it is our opinion that a narrow protective
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
7
layer, as now particularly claimed, would not have been
suggested by the Gin and Fesco teachings, collectively
considered. As to the patent to Bosses, we conclude that it
does not overcome the deficiency of the Gin and Fesco
disclosures. More specifically, the Bosses document, which
refers to each of the Gin and Fesco teachings (column 1, lines
18 through 37), simply reveals another alternative to the
teachings of the Gin document (melt-blown filter layer
sandwiched between inner and outer layers), i.e., a two-ply
bag wherein a melt-blown filter ply is inside an outer ply
(Fig. 5).

Since the evidence of obviousness would not have been
suggestive of the claimed subject matter, each of the
rejections on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be reversed.
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
8
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC/sld
Appeal No. 1998-3001
Application No. 08/318,645
9
WILLIAM J BOND
3M OFFICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COUNSEL
P. O. BOX 33427
ST PAUL, MN 55133-3427
APPEAL NO. 1998-3001 - JUDGE
COHEN
APPLICATION NO. 08/318,645
APJ COHEN
APJ BAHR J.
APJ NASE
DECISION: REVERSED
Prepared By:
DRAFT TYPED: 20 Jul 01
FINAL TYPED: