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