Appeal No. 2001-0786
Application No. 09/089,575
baseplate feedholes as argued by Appellant.
It is necessary to make a distinction between a feed conduit
wall and the feed conduit itself. Claim 1 requires that the feed
conduit itself be angled away from the flow axis of the baseplate
feedhole over at least a portion of its length. To the extent
that a portion of the feed conduit wall is angled away from the
flow axis of the baseplate feedhole in Duerr (see Figure 11), a
portion of the feed conduit itself is not angled away from the
flow axis of the baseplate feedhole as required by claim 1. For
this reason, the rejection of claim 1 is reversed. See Verdegaal
Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and
every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.”). Since claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1, the
rejection of claims 3 and 4 is also reversed.
2. Rejection of claims 2 and 8
Claim 2 is directed to a honeycomb extrusion die comprising:
[A] multilayer compound feed section disposed between
and joining the die body to the die baseplate, that
section comprising a stacked plurality of thin plates
and incorporating an array of branching feed conduits
formed by substantially aligned openings in the plates,
the plates including an inlet plate joined to the
baseplate and having openings in registry with the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007