Appeal 2006-2908
Application 10/370,840
impedance, and swollen webs in the extruded honeycomb
structures resulting in defects and product failure. Due to the
intricacy of the design of the prior art device cost is also an
issue.
Col. 1, ll. 57-63. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid that one of ordinary skill in
the art was fully cognizant of using a plurality of adjustable plates in a bow
deflector device, but the artisan was also aware of the disadvantages
associated therewith. In the present case, Appellants have not proffered any
objective evidence which establishes that their use of a plurality of
adjustable plates produces unexpected results compared to the single
adjustable plate of Grover, nor have Appellants demonstrated that the
claimed device does not experience the disadvantages of using a plurality of
adjustable plates discussed by Grover. Accordingly, the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the Examiner stands unrebutted.
Also, although we agree with the Examiner that Brew, Ziegler, and
Groeblacher provide additional evidence for the obviousness of using a
plurality of adjustable plates in bow correctors and extrusion devices, it
should be apparent that it is our view that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Grover alone.
As for Appellants’ argument that the device of Grover does not allow
for adjustment in more than one direction, the Examiner correctly points out
that the appealed claims do not require such but, only, that the bow in the
extrudate be corrected in “any” one direction. Moreover, it would seem that
the plurality of plates of the prior art discussed by Grover would be capable
of providing adjustment in more than one direction.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007