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).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007