Ex Parte Shalkey - Page 2

                Appeal 2006-2494                                                                              
                Application 10/651,553                                                                        

                I.   APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER                                                                  
                      The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method for                                
                manufacturing a honeycomb ceramic material that can be used as a catalytic                    
                converter to reduce the pollution emissions from various gasoline and diesel                  
                engines (Specification, 0001 and 0004).  Details of the appealed subject                      
                matter are recited in representative claim 1, which is reproduced below:                      
                      1. A method of manufacturing a honeycomb ceramic substrate                              
                comprising:                                                                                   
                      providing a plasticized ceramic batch material;                                         
                      filtering the ceramic batch material through a filter screen comprising                 
                filter wires having a wedge shaped cross section;                                             
                      extruding the filtered ceramic batch material through a die to form a                   
                honeycomb ceramic substrate.                                                                  
                II.  PRIOR ART                                                                                
                      As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the                       
                Examiner has relied upon the following references:                                            
                Orso    US 3,888,963   Jun. 10, 1975                                                          
                Peters    US 4,574,459   Mar. 11, 1986                                                        
                Baba    US 4,839,120   Jun. 13, 1989                                                          

                III.  REJECTIONS                                                                              
                      The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:                              
                1)  Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of                      
                Baba;                                                                                         
                2) Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined                         
                disclosures of Baba and Orso; and                                                             

                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013