UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RANDY SIMMONS
__________
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
Technology Center 1700
___________
Decided: April 26, 2010
___________
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1-4, 16, and 19-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
Claims 1, 19, and 20, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A filter screen assembly for use with an air intake
structure, the structure including at least one face within which
is formed an air intake opening, said filter screen assembly
comprising:
a screen including a mesh material with an outer
perimeter edge, said perimeter edge further comprising an outer
frame portion and an inner frame portion, between which is
sandwichingly engaged said mesh material; and
said perimeter edge being secured at specified locations
to the face of the air intake structure in order to prevent the
admittance of air bypassing the mesh material, to filter out
contaminants associated with an air stream entering the intake
structure, and to prevent said screen from being drawn into the
air intake opening, said specified securing locations each
further comprising an elongate extending rod mounting in
extending fashion along the air intake face and in proximity to
the intake opening, at least one extending location of said
perimeter edge being supported upon said rod.
19. A filter screen assembly for use with an air intake
structure, the structure including a face within which his [sic,
is] formed an air intake opening, said filter screen assembly
comprising:
a screen including a mesh material with an outer
perimeter edge;
a plurality of axially extending stiffening elements
secured to extending locations of said perimeter edge;
a plurality of clamps associated with each extending side
of said perimeter edge, each of said clamps each further
comprising a biasing arm extending from an outer facing
2
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
surface of the intake structure and being engageable to grip a
selected one of said stiffening elements; and
said perimeter edge being secured at specified locations
against the face of the air intake structure in order to prevent the
admittance of air bypassing the mesh material, to filter out
contaminants associated with an air stream entering the intake
structure, and to prevent said screen from being drawn into the
air intake opening.
20. A filter screen assembly for use with an air intake
structure, the structure including at least one face within which
is formed an air intake opening, said filter screen assembly
comprising:
a screen including a mesh material with an outer
perimeter edge;
said perimeter edge being secured at specified locations
to the face of the air intake structure to filter out contaminants
associated with an air stream entering the intake structure and to
prevent said screen from being drawn into the air intake
opening, said specified securing locations each further
comprising an elongate extending cable mounting in extending
fashion along the air intake face and in proximity to the intake
opening, at least one extending location of said perimeter edge
being supported upon said cable, at least one pair of elongate
extending cables extending along selected perimeter edge
locations; and
said extending perimeter edge locations each further
comprising a looped edge for receiving a selected cable
therethrough, a turnbuckle arrayed between a selected one of
said mounting locations and an associated extending end of said
cable.
Br., Claims Appendix.1
1
Appeal Brief dated June 5, 2008.
3
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us on appeal:
(1) Claims 1-4, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Simmons2 and Choi.3
(2) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Simmons, Bartlett,4 and Nolan.5
(3) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Simmons and Wright.6
B. ISSUES
(1) Has the Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Simmons discloses a screen secured to the face of an air
intake structure as recited in claims 1 and 21?
(2) Has the Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combined teachings of Simmons and Nolan render
obvious a filter screen assembly comprising a plurality of clamps as recited
in claim 19?
(3) Has the Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combined teachings of Simmons and Wright render
obvious a screen supported on a cable as recited in claim 20?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Simmons discloses a filter screen assembly which is capable of being
securably attached over an air intake opening of an air filtration, treatment,
or intake structure. Simmons 1:8-12.
2
US 6,197,077 B1 to Simmons et al. issued March 6, 2001.
3
US 6,652,748 B1 to Choi issued November 25, 2003.
4
US 3,413,782 to Bartlett issued December 3, 1968.
5
US 2,562,677 to Nolan issued July 31, 1951.
6
US 5,365,991 to Wright et al. issued November 22, 1994.
4
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
Simmons Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment of
the filter screen assembly.
Simmons Figure 2 depicts a filter screen assembly.
The screen 26 includes a pair of hook portions 36 and 38 which are
securable on a bar 40 which is mounted along the top 18 of the air intake
structure 12. Simmons 3:11-15.
The screen 26 also includes a first sleeve 42 within which is inserted a
first bar 44 and a second sleeve 46 within which is inserted a second bar 48.
The first bar 44 tensions and stiffens the upper end of the screen, and the
second bar 48 provides weighting to the bottom of the screen and tensions
and stiffens the lower end of the screen. Simmons 3:23-30.
Simmons discloses that fasteners are provided for securing “first and
second side edges of the screen to the first and second sides of the intake
opening.” Simmons 2:1-4.
Simmons discloses that the screen 26 is particularly useful for filtering
out cotton wood pollen, insects, leaves, and the like prior to being drawn
into the air intake 14. Simmons 3:7-10.
5
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). All disclosures of the prior art
must be considered. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).
E. ANALYSIS
1. Issue (1)
The Appellant argues that neither Simmons nor Choi teaches or
suggests securing a filter screen to a surface of an air intake structure. Br. 8,
11.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
Simmons discloses a filter screen assembly for mounting over an air intake
opening of a structure. Simmons 1:52-57. The Examiner points out that
Simmons discloses that “[f]asteners are provided for securing at least first
and second sides of the screen to corresponding sides of the intake structure .
. . .” Ans. 57; Simmons Abstract; see also Simmons 2:1-4. Thus, it is
reasonable to conclude that Simmons teaches that the screen is “secured . . .
to the face of the air intake structure” as recited in claim 1 and “secured by
said fasteners against the intake face” of the air intake structure as recited in
claim 21.
As for Choi, the Examiner merely relies on Choi to establish that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sandwich the
screen of Simmons between an outer frame portion and an inner frame
portion as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4-5. Significantly, the Appellant does not
direct us to any error in this finding.
7
Examiner’s Answer dated July 31, 2008.
6
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
2. Issue (2)
The Examiner found that Simmons does not teach using clamps to
grip the perimeter edge of the screen.8 Ans. 8. However, the Examiner
found:
Nolan . . . teaches a coil spring clamp which may be placed
around the hose and fitting or other members with the
convolutions of the spring expanded, so that when the spring is
released the tension inherent in the metal from which it is
formed causes it to contract, thus tightly gripping the hose and
fitting (Col. 1, line 1-10).
Ans. 8.
The Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion that the
pipe retaining clamp in Nolan is combinable with the filter screen assembly
disclosed in Simmons. Br. 9.
The Appellant’s argument is well supported by the record. Nolan
discloses a spring clamp that may be placed around a hose to maintain a
leakproof joint. See Nolan 1:24-30. On this record, it is unclear how or why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the spring clamp disclosed in
Nolan to grip the perimeter edge of the screen of Simmons. Thus, we cannot
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 19.
3. Issue (3)
The Examiner found that Simmons does not teach an elongate
extending cable that supports at least one extending perimeter edge of the
screen. Ans. 9. However, the Examiner found that Wright discloses a
curtain support comprising a cable 40 connected to a turnbuckle 54 and
8
The Examiner found that Bartlett discloses a filter element having
reinforced edges which advantageously create a tighter seal between the
filter element and support members. Ans. 8.
7
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
fixed on an eyebolt 53, 88. The Examiner found that the cable assembly
disclosed in Wright is equivalent to the fasteners disclosed in Simmons.
Thus, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the cable assembly disclosed in Wright to
support the screen of Simmons. Ans. 9.
The Appellant argues that Wright does not disclose a filtration screen.
Br. 10.
We recognize that the curtain of Wright is not a filtration screen.
However, the Examiner found, and the Appellant does not dispute, that the
cable assembly disclosed in Wright would be a useful alternative for
supporting the screen of Simmons. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that the cable 40 of Wright would be a useful
alternative for performing the stiffening and tensioning functions of the bars
44 and 48 disclosed in Simmons. See Wright 2:47-51; Simmons 3:23-30.
The Appellant also argues that the cable 40 in Wright extends through
apertures in the curtain (i.e., grommets 41) rather than through looped edges
as recited in claim 20. Br. 10-11.
This argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole. In the
modification proposed by the Examiner, the first and second bars of
Simmons (44, 48) are replaced with the cable 40 of Wright. The bars of
Simmons are each contained in a sleeve (i.e., sleeves 42 and 46) or a “looped
edge” of the screen as recited in claim 20. Thus, when the first and second
bars of Simmons are replaced by the cable 40 of Wright, the cable would be
received in the looped edges of the screen.
Finally, the Appellant argues that the cable 40 is “clearly
distinguishable from the air intake mounted cables” recited in claim 20. Br.
8
Appeal 2009-005402
Application 10/870,608
10. However, on this record, the Appellant has not provided any support for
this allegation.
F. DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Simmons and Choi is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Simmons, Bartlett, and Nolan is reversed.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Simmons and Wright 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
PL Initial:
sld
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
PO BOX 7021
TROY MI 48007-7021
9