Appeal No. 1997-1613
Application 08/109,646
The problem of protecting the edges of intumescent mounting mats of catalytic converters from
erosion was recognized in the art as admitted by appellants, citing Merry as evidence of one solution to
that problem (specification, page 1). Appellants claim another solution to the known problem wherein
an edge protectant material as specified in , e.g., claim 1, is positioned between the metallic casing and
the catalytic converted element. We find that the prior art applied to the claimed invention
encompassed by the appealed claims by the examiner would not have reasonably suggested the claimed
invention to one of ordinary skill in this art for two reasons. First, the examiner has not set forth in the
record a scientific explanation why the teachings of the use of metal fabric for edge protection of
intumescent mounting material in Merry (e.g., cols. 2-3) and the use of a compressible braided rope of
fiberglass as sealing material at the edges of intumescent mounting material in Wagner et al. (e.g., cols.
8-9), either separately or combined would have reasonably suggested the use of an edge protectant
material comprising a binder having disposed therein glass particles as specified in claim 1 for use in the
reasonable expectation of reducing erosion of intumescent mounting material. We observe that the
braided rope of fiberglass disclosed in Wagner et al. appears to be the same as or similar to other
material acknowledged by appellants to have been applied to the edges of intumescent mounting mats
(specification, page 1). Indeed, there is no evidence of record that ceramic containing materials other
than those acknowledged by appellants (specification, page 1: “braided or rope-like ceramic (i.e., glass,
crystalline ceramic, or glass-ceramic)”) have been used in the art to protect the edges of intumescent
mounting mats from erosion.
And, second, even assuming that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found in the
teachings of Merry and Wagner et al. and in the art recognized use of other materials, including ceramic
containing materials, acknowledged by appellants, the suggestion to employ other materials containing
ceramic materials to protect the edges of intumescent mounting mats from erosion, we find no scientific
explanation or evidence that this person would have been lead to combine these teachings with the
teachings of Luckanuck and/or Peterson et al. in order to arrive at the claimed invention. There is no
dispute that Luckanuck and Peterson et al. are not drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention, Merry and Wagner et al. Thus, the further issue with respect to whether Luckanuck and
Peterson et al. are analogous prior art is whether either or both of them are reasonably pertinent to the
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007