Application of Young, Patent Appeal No. 8058.
Decision Date | 05 December 1968 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8058. |
Citation | 159 USPQ 725,403 F.2d 754 |
Parties | Application of Ralph L. YOUNG and Kingsley E. Humbert, Jr. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Ralph L. Young, pro se, James W. Dent, Donald J. Rich, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D. C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, and BALDWIN, Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals,1 affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 16-18 in appellants' application2 for "Filters" as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 1033 over Vokes4 combined with Pumps.5
Appellants' invention relates to filters for fluids, such as air, and methods of their construction. The particular structural embodiment involved in the instant appeal is illustrated in Figure 8:
This filter unit has a pleated core of filter paper 64 interposed between top and bottom filter paper walls 62 and 63. The V-shaped accordion pleats have alternate edges respectively bonded to sheets 62 and 63 by glue or other means, thereby forming a plurality of V-shaped cells 67. In operation, a fluid to be treated is passed through openings 68 in sheet 62 into a top V-shaped cell 67, through filter paper 64, into a bottom V-shaped cell 67, and out through openings 69 in sheet 63. The entire filter unit is disposed in a housing which is not shown in the figure reproduced above.
One claim to a filter unit and two claims to a method of manufacture thereof having been allowed by the board, the claims on appeal here are directed to the method of making the filter unit. The appealed claims read:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lundy Elec. & Sys., Inc. v. Optical Recognition Sys., Inc.
...of validity as against the defense of obviousness. Application of Kuderna, 426 F.2d 385, 57 CCPA 1078 (1970); Application of Young, 403 F.2d 754, 56 CCPA 757 (1968). Therefore the Court must examine the other patents in question (the prior art) to determine whether they were searched, and, ......
-
Deep Welding, Inc. v. Sciaky Bros., Inc.
...199 F.2d 259, 264 (7th Cir. 1952); Akron Brass Co. v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., 353 F.2d 704, 706 (7th Cir. 1956); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-758 (Cust. & Pat.App.1968); and Koehring Co. v. E. D. Etnyre & Co., 254 F.Supp. 334, 361 (N.D.Ill.1966). In this respect, the prior art is cumulati......
-
In re Keller
...by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Young, 56 CCPA 757, 403 F.2d 754, 159 USPQ 725 (1968). Moreover, as set forth above, the test is not whether a suggestion to use digital timing in a cardiac pacer is found in W......
-
Ex parte Liptsey-Rahe
...individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58 (CCPA 1968). Here the Examiner combines the teachings of Matsuoka, Li, Synesiou, and Platt to meet the limitations of claim 1. (Final A......