Gordon, In re
| Decision Date | 10 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 124312,No. 83-1281,83-1281,124312 |
| Citation | 733 F.2d 900,221 USPQ 1125 |
| Parties | In re Lucas S. GORDON and Karl M. Sutherland. AppealSerial |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
James W. Geriak, Los Angeles, Cal., argued for appellants. With him on brief was Bradford J. Duft, Los Angeles, Cal.
John F. Pitrelli, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C.
Before BENNETT, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") affirming the examiner's rejection of appellants' claims 1 1-3 and 5-7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103. We reverse.
Appellants claim a "blood filter assembly" used during surgery and other medical procedures involving the handling of blood to remove clots, bone debris, tissue, or other foreign materials from blood before it is returned to a patient's body. Unlike blood filter assemblies widely used in the prior art, the device of the present invention permits both entry of the blood into, and ultimate discharge of the blood out of, the bottom end of the filter assembly, as shown below. 2
The blood filter assembly comprises a shell 1 provided with blood inlet 3 and blood outlet 4. Between the blood inlet and the blood outlet is filter medium 6 positioned within the filter medium core 7.
The location of blood inlet 3 is such that the incoming blood is directed along a spirally upward path by the inner wall of the shell. Further, the location of the blood inlet at the bottom end of the filter assembly facilitates the removal of gas bubbles by allowing them to rise upwardly out of the blood. The gas bubbles so removed are released from the blood filter assembly by means of a gas vent 5 located in the region of the top end of the assembly.
Independent claim 1, from which the other appealed claims depend, is illustrative:
Blood filter assembly comprising:
said blood inlet being located and configured in a manner capable of directing incoming blood in a generally spiral path within said shell.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-7 further define the shape of the shell, the shape of the filter medium, and the nature of the material used as the filter medium.
PRIOR ART
The sole reference relied upon by the board is United States Patent No. 1,175,948, issued March 21, 1916, to French. French discloses a liquid strainer for removing dirt and water from gasoline and other light oils. As shown below, the inlet 4 and outlet 5 of the French device are both at the top end of the device.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
A continuous helical tooth or thread 8 is formed integral with the inner wall of shell 1 and imparts to the incoming liquid a whirling motion, which gives the liquid a scouring action to help clean the surface of a metal screen filter 21 and guides unwanted dirt and water downwardly into a pocket 9 in the bottom of the shell. A pair of shelves 10 and 11, projecting inwardly and downwardly from the inner wall of the shell, further assists the entrance of dirt and water into the pocket 9 and prevents their being drawn back into the main chamber 12. The reference expressly states, "gravity assists in the separation of heavier oils or water." A pet-cock 13, projecting vertically downward from the bottom of the pocket is used to remove the collected dirt and water periodically. The top of the liquid strainer is completely closed by gland 3 except for the inlet and outlet openings.
The board held that the appealed claims were drawn to an apparatus which "would have at least been rendered prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the apparatus disclosed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider (Europe) AG v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc.
...the intended purpose or function disclosed in a reference, there is no motivation for engaging in the modification. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed.Cir.1984). Modifying Leary or Erbel in the manner suggested by SciMed would destroy their intended purpose and would not have been obv......
-
McGinley v. Franklin Sports
...1969) (references teach away from combination if combination produces seemingly inoperative device); see also In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (inoperable modification teaches McGinley argues in his brief that Pratt itself teaches away from combining the......
-
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Perrigo Co.
...in the Gueret '187 patent, and thus, there would have been no suggestion to modify the device in such a manner. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed.Cir.1984) (finding no suggestion to modify a prior art device where the modification would render the device inoperable for its intended p......
-
Numatics, Inc. v. Balluff, Inc.
...there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.’ ” 1 Patent Law Practice Forms § 13:6.71 (quoting In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed.Cir.1984) ).O'Keefe identified some of the practical barriers to combining the references Justice proposed. For example, several of the p......
-
Obviousness Allegations Fall Short After Petitioner's "Weak Showing" Of A Motivation To Combine The Art
...existed. See, e.g., In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 n. 12 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP ' 2143.01(V) and Similarly, a prior art reference does not render the claimed invention obvious if the reference "......
-
Losing Competing Property Not A Teaching Away
...the rejection of Urbanski's claims. What About MPEP § 2143.01(V)? The Federal Circuit distinguished the case at hand from In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which appears to be the basis for MPEP § 2143.01(V). That section of the MPEP provides the following guidance......
-
Chapter §9.07 Combining Prior Art Disclosures
...F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). See also In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (stating that an inoperable modification teaches away); In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (C.C.P.A. 1969) (stating th......
-
Combating Hindsight Reconstruction in Patent Prosecution
...Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation mark omitted).164. Id. (quoting In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (C.C.P.A. 1969)).165. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 900-02 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). 166. See id. at 901.167. See id. at 901-02.168. Id. at 902.169. See id.170. W.......