Ex Parte Zermani et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 6, 2007

09811970 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 6, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS ZERMANI,
JAMES GROVES,
and BRIAN FOLEY
____________

Appeal 2006-2578
Application 09/811,970
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 6, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 11, 16, 24, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2006-2578
Application 09/811,970

We AFFIRM.
The Appellants invented a filtration device. With reference to Figure
2, the device comprises at least one plastic well 14 having one or more holes
in the bottom thereof, a filter 12 positioned against the bottom of each well
and a continuous roll of inner wall material 11, 13 of the well positioned
against a top 15 of the filter to hold the filter in place. The filtration device
is defined in representative independent claim 1 as follows:
1. A filtration device comprising at least one well, each well having
an open top and a closed bottom having one or more holes which
allow liquid to pass through and an inner wall, at least one piece of
filter positioned within each well and against the bottom of each
well and a continuous roll of inner wall material of the well
positioned against a top of the filter to hold the at least one filter
piece in place and said well being formed of a plastic.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in the § 102 and § 103
rejections before us are set forth below:
Bowers US 5,108,704 Apr. 28, 1992
Aysta US 5,264,184 Nov. 23, 1993

Claims 1, 11, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bowers, and claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Aysta.1

1 Only independent claims 1 and 26 have been separately grouped and
argued by Appellants (Br. 3, 4, 6). Accordingly, the dependent claims on
appeal, including separately rejected claim 24, will stand or fall with these
independent claims.
2
Appeal 2006-2578
Application 09/811,970

The Examiner finds the independent claim limitation “a continuous
roll of inner wall material of the well” (claims 1, 26) positioned against a top
of the filter to hold the filter in place is satisfied by shoulder 17 (Figures 10,
11) of Bowers’ filtration device (Answer 4, 6).
With respect to both the § 102 and § 103 rejections, the Appellants
present the following argument.
[T]he Figure cited for support in the office action is Figure 11.
In this embodiment, Bowers clearly and specifically teaches
that it is the annular element 96, the bottom of which is applied
to the upper surface of the filter 70 to hold the filter 70 in place.
(Column 8, lines 48-63 of Bowers). Nowhere does Bowers
teach that the shoulder 17, which is located some ways up the
side of the inner wall, holds the filter in place. Bowers clearly
and unequivocally teaches and shows to the contrary that the
bottom surface of the annular element of the upper plate
performs this function. As this feature as well as the shoulder
feature itself is not a continuous roll of inner wall material as
required by the claims, Bower fails to teach the claimed
element and is not an anticipatory reference.

Brief 4, see also 6.

On this record, there are no disputed findings of fact concerning the
teachings of Bowers. The only dispute is whether the shoulders of
Bowers satisfy the "continuous roll" requirement of the independent
claims.

3
Appeal 2006-2578
Application 09/811,970

ISSUE

Is the “continuous roll of inner wall material of the well”
requirement of the independent claims satisfied by the shoulder 17 feature
of Bowers’ filtration device?
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
During examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

ANALYSIS
As indicated previously, it is undisputed that Bowers discloses a
filtration device having wells comprising annular members 96 with
shoulders 17 that are positioned against a top of filter 70 to hold the filter in
place (Fig. 11; col. 8, ll. 48-63). These shoulders, like Appellants' rolls or
mechanical interlocks, are continuous in that they extend circumferentially
around the inner perimeter of the wells (id.). Also like Appellants' rolls or
mechanical interlocks, the shoulders constitute the inner wall material of
Bowers’ wells (id.).
As for the claim term "roll," we observe that Appellants' Specification
discloses holding the well filter in place with a mechanical inner lock
comprising a portion of the well inner wall which has been skived and rolled
on top of the filter (Specification 3, last para.). With reference to Figure 4,
the Specification also discloses the formation of a continuous roll 34
(Specification 6, 3rd para.) which is depicted in the Figure as skived wall
material rolled up on the form of a cylinder. Finally, the Specification
4
Appeal 2006-2578
Application 09/811,970

teaches forming the interlock with a heated skive device which softens the
wall material in order to "make it flow as a continuous piece in forming the
interlock" (Specification 7, 1st full para.).
The term "roll" possesses a number of definitions. For example, "roll"
is defined as "[s]omething rolled up in the form of a cylinder … [as in] a roll
of masking tape" (Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984,
pages 1016-17). This definition applies to the roll 34 depicted in Appellants'
Figure 4. As another example, "roll" is defined as "[a] gentle swell or
undulation of a surface … [as in] the roll of the prairie" (id.). This definition
applies to the interlock embodiment described in the first full paragraph on
Specification 7.
The last mentioned definition also is applicable to shoulder 17 in the
wells of Bowers' filtration device. As shown in Figure 11 of the Bowers
patent, shoulder 17 constitutes a gentle swell or undulation of the surface of
annular member 96. Therefore, the surface of this annular member may be
accurately described as containing a "roll" in the form of shoulder 17.
Because the interlock embodiment described on Specification 7 falls
within the aforementioned definition of the term "roll," it is reasonable and
consistent with the Specification to broadly interpret the claim term "roll" as
encompassing a gentle swell or undulation of a surface of the type depicted
as shoulder 17 in Figure 11 of Bowers. Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1372, 54
USPQ2d at 1667.

5
Appeal 2006-2578
Application 09/811,970

LEGAL DETERMINATION
The independent claim limitation "a continuous roll of inner wall
material of the well" encompasses, and therefore is satisfied by, shoulders 17
of Bowers' filtration device.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 1, 11,
16, and 26 as being anticipated by Bowers as well as the § 103 rejection of
claim 24 as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Aysta.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

Millipore Corporation
290 Concord Road
Billerica, MA 01821
6