Appeal No. 2002-1974
Application No. 09/023,953
does not describe the coating which is applied to at least a portion of the interior metal
sheet.2 In any event, if Hitachi did include a coating as required by the claimed invention
the coating would have been applied to an interior smooth surface.
Hitachi discloses the interior of the catalytic converter is bounded by a flat cylinder
(3) that extends the entire axial length of the honeycomb structure. The Examiner has not
provided adequate motivation for eliminating the interior support devices of Hitachi. The
Examiner asserts that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to use the corrugated metal sheet as an innermost layer to define a coil-free central zone
as taught by Cyron et al[.] in the apparatus of Hitachi et al[.] to facilitate the grasping of
the end of the sheets during mass production as taught by Cyron et al.” (Answer, p. 6).
As stated above, Hitachi uses a cylinder as support for the honeycomb structure. The
Examiner has not addressed what the effects of removal of the interior would have on the
Hitachi invention.
The mere fact that the prior art could be modified would not have made the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.
In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Laskowski, 871 F.2d 115, 117, 10 USPQ2d 1397, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The record
2 Hitachi discloses that a nickle-based brazing solution is used in the combining of the
honeycomb core body and metal casting. (Col. 6). There is no indication by the Examiner that this
solution would have the properties required by the invention of claim 1.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007