Appeal No. 2005-0067 Application No. 08/853,842 It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide slits as taught by JP 61- 089916 in the sheet material of the end cones of DE references on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice to achieve the improved winding of the mat as taught by the JP reference... We cannot agree with this conclusion. As pointed out by the appellants (appeal brief filed Feb. 11, 2004, pages 20-21), JP ’916 teaches the provision of seal mats with grooves to decrease excess compressive force on the honeycomb catalyst. (Pages 2-3.) Thus, if JP ’916 and either DE ’283 or DE ’070 were to be combined at all, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the expansion mat (4) of DE ’283 or spacer mat (16) of DE ’070, not the thermally insulating mat (5) of DE ’283 or insulating mat (20) of DE ’070. While the examiner argues that the seal mats with grooves of JP ’916 have “improved winding performance” (page 1) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use such mats around end cones “to improve the winding of the mat thereof” (answer at 7- 8), it is clear that the “improved winding performance” relates to the ability of the mats to relieve excessive compressive force on the honeycomb during winding of the mat around the honeycomb (pages 2-3). 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007