Appeal 2006-2494
Application 10/651,553
VII. ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections are premised on Baba
either expressly or inherently describing the claimed filtering step.
According to the Examiner (Answer 3):
Baba teaches a method of manufacturing a honeycomb ceramic
substrate (1:5-10) comprising: providing a plasticized ceramic
batch material (3:3-11); filtering the ceramic batch material
through a filter screen (Fig. 3a) comprising a wedge shaped
cross section (Fig. 3b); extruding the filtered ceramic batch
material through a die to form a honeycomb ceramic substrate
(1:5-10, 1:45-52, and 3:22-28).
However, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Baba is silent as to filtering
the ceramic batch material with “filter wires having a wedge shaped cross
section” as required by claim 1. Baba’s Figures 3a and 3b relied upon by the
Examiner are directed to a grid drum which provides no filtering function
(no separation of particles). (See Baba, col. 2, ll. 52-54 and col. 3, ll. 14-22).
As correctly pointed out by the Appellant (Br. 4), “the grid drum loosens and
crushes the material reaching it so that all of the material [is] discharged
from the extruder.” (See also Baba, col. 3, ll. 14-22 and 54-64). On this
record, the Examiner simply has not supplied any evidence to demonstrate
that the grid drum inherently or necessarily functions as a filter. In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, for the reasons well articulated by the Appellant in the Brief
and above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § § 102(b) and 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013