Ex Parte Kamleiter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11632631 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/632,631 11/28/2007 Michael Kamleiter 51659 7946 1609 7590 11/30/2012 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1778 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL KAMLEITER and WILHELM-N. GUDERNATSCH ____________ Appeal 2011-011450 Application 11/632,631 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. Appeal 2011-011450 Application 11/632,631 2 DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1 finally rejecting claims 8-16 as unpatentable over Brociner (US 3,659,718, issued May 2, 1972) in view of Bengtson (US 5,254,251, issued Oct. 19, 1993).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability as to all appealed claims are based on limitations found in claim 83, the sole independent claim on appeal, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (emphasis added): 8. A filter medium, comprising: at least one first filter membrane having a supportive and protective first fabric ply made up of warp and weft threads; at least one second filter membrane having a supportive and protective second fabric ply made up of warp and weft threads; and a third fabric ply extending between and adjacent to said first and second filter membranes, said weft threads of one of said first and second fabric plies extending through said third fabric ply to connect said first and second filter membranes. The Examiner relies on Brociner figures 1, 2, and 4, and corresponding descriptions thereof, for a disclosure of first, second, and third fabric plies as recited in appealed claim 8. (Ans. 4 7-9.) The Examiner finds Brociner teaches 1 Final Office Action mailed Oct. 15, 2010 (“Final”) 2 Appeal Brief filed Apr. 15, 2011 (“App. Br.”) 3 Appellants’ arguments regarding dependent claims 9-16 (App. Br. 5-7) amount to nothing more than statements as to what the claims recite, and will not be considered as arguments for separate patentability of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 4 Examiner’s Answer mailed Jun. 13, 2011. Appeal 2011-011450 Application 11/632,631 3 threading (seams 8) that extends through the third fabric ply (matting 4) to connect the first and second fabric plies (filter cloths 1, 2). (See id. at 9, ¶ 12.) Appellants argue, and we agree, that Brociner’s seams are not formed from the same weft threads used in forming one of the first and second filter cloths as required by the appealed claims. (See App. Br. 4; Reply Br.5 2.) Based on the Response to Argument (e.g. Ans. 17), it appears the Examiner fails to appreciate that the appealed claims are directed to a specific embodiment, which differs from other described embodiments wherein a separate thread is used to bind the fabric plies. (See Ans. 17 (“[A]ppellant is arguing that one unclear sentence governs the interpretation of claim 8’s last limitation, precluding the rest of the Specification.”); cf. App. Br. 5 (“As disclosed on page 7, last paragraph of the application as filed, the claimed invention can omit the binding threads 26 and produce the lamination by the longitudinal or weft threads of the respectively upper (first) and lower (second) fabric ply 12, 16.”).) Because the Examiner’s obviousness determination is based on an erroneous finding of fact, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8-16. REVERSED kmm 5 Reply Brief filed Jun. 23, 2011.