Appeal No. 2004-1856
Application No. 09/908,413
The examiner finds the additional layer defined by appealed
independent claim 1 to be anticipated by the catalytic layer of
Kurachi (e.g., see figure 2). According to the appellants, this
finding is in error because patentee’s catalytic layer is not
“formed in pores of the porous overcoat” and is not “in direct
contact with the base coat” as required by the appealed claims.
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner responds to the appellants’
argument in the following manner:
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not pointed to a
teaching of at least one additional layer formed in pores of
the porous overcoat in direct contact with the base coat.
The Examiner points to the teaching at col. 3, lines 1-5
which clearly discloses an additional layer of a catalytic
coating may be applied either by deposition or impregnated
into the porous overcoat and this catalytic layer is formed
of the same metals as recited in instant claim 4 shown at
col. 6, lines 3-7, lines 56-60, and col. 9, lines 30-35.
Kurachi discloses a catalyst applied to the protective
overcoat by impregnation, which would mean the overcoat has
pores, which would ultimately produce an additional
catalytic layer formed within those pores.
As correctly pointed out by the appellants, the column
3 disclosure referred to by the examiner relates to a discussion
by Kurachi, not of his invention but rather, of the invention
described in prior art U.S. Patent Number 4,199,425 (see lines
65-68 in column 2 in conjunction with lines 1-5 in column 3 which
were cited by the examiner). Nowhere does Kurachi describe the
catalytic layer of his invention as formed by impregnating his
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007