Appeal No. 2004-1854 Application No. 08/971,851 control element while maintaining an excellent air-tight capability (translation, pages 1-2). See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The generic term “arrangement means” taught by JP ‘916 (sentence bridging pages 3-4) would have reasonably suggested alternative directions of the grooves, as evidenced by the “numerous grooves” formed diagonal to the axis of the pollution control element as taught by JP ‘313 to achieve the same effect as desired by JP ‘916 (see JP ‘313, page 2, claims 1 and 4; page 4, ll. 2-5; page 8, second full paragraph; and Figure 2). Appellants argue that the grooves in the mat of JP ‘916 are designed solely to reduce the excessive occurrence of compressive pressure on the pollution control element while maintaining air- tight capability (Brief, page 10). Therefore appellants argue that there is no motivation to modify JP ‘916 as proposed by the examiner since if the grooves were positioned in the direction of the gas flow through the device, the sheet material of JP ‘916 would be unlikely to maintain its “excellent air-tight capability” due to exhaust gas flow through the spacing between the housing and sheet material or the spacing between the sheet material and the pollution control element (Brief, pages 11-12). 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007