Appeal No. 2000-1269
Application 08/756,349
established that these excerpts are admitted prior art rather
than being teachings by the appellant. Regardless, even if
the subject matter of these excerpts was known in the art, the
examiner’s rationale is not persuasive.
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to make all, rather than
some, of Maus’ smooth layers thicker than the corrugated
layers if the catalyst support body required greater strength
(brief, pages 4-5). Maus, however, indicates that reinforcing
only some of the smooth layers provides adequate strength
(col. 2, lines 54-59), and the examiner has provided no
evidence that there are catalytic support bodies which require
greater strength. The examiner has merely provided
speculation to that effect, and such speculation is not a
sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re Sporck, 301
F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ 360, 364 (CCPA 1962).
The examiner argues that the appellant’s statement that
“preparing individual, different-thickness sheet-metal layers
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007