Appeal No. 2001-0786
Application No. 09/089,575
baseplate feedholes and a terminal plate joined to the
die body and having openings in registry with the body
feedholes . . . .
According to the examiner (Paper No. 6, p. 3):
Duerr et al. teaches the basic claimed honeycomb
extrusion die . . . .
Duerr et al. does not teach a multilayer compound
feed section comprising a stacked plurality of thin
plates which incorporate an array of branching feed
conduits. However, Kragle et al. teaches a multilayer
compound feed section comprising a stacked plurality of
thin plates which incorporate an array of branching
feed conduits (Fig. 2, element 24). . . . Duerr et al.
and Kragle et al. are combinable because they are from
the same field of endeavor, namely, honeycomb extrusion
dies.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify the compound feed section in the extrusion die of Duerr
with the multilayer structure disclosed in Kragle in view of the
less costly drilling/boring procedure disclosed in Kragle.
Appellant argues that the examiner has not pointed to any
specific teaching in either reference to support the combination
proposed. Brief, pp. 6-7.
The examiner explains that the proposed modification is
motivated by economic reasons. See In re Thompson, 545 F.2d
1290, 1294, 192 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1976) (economic factors alone
would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007