Appeal 2007-1018
Application 10/376,782
Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for claims 27-29, 31,
32, 35, and 36. Accordingly, these claims stand or fall with claim 27. Also,
claims 33, 34, and 37 stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
Ishida, like Appellants, discloses an apparatus for treating exhaust
comprising a catalyzed open substrate comprising a metal honeycomb
member (3), which substrate defines a plurality of channels that are
dimensioned and configured to permit the flow of fluid through the
substrate, wherein the catalyzed substrate is "made by electric arc spraying
of molten metal anchor layer and a catalytic material on the anchor layer
(see, for example, col. 5, lines 2-13)" (page 3 of Answer, penultimate para.).
Also, the apparatus of Ishida comprises "a canister (2) having an inlet
opening and an outlet opening and within which the catalyzed substrate
(3) is enclosed; the catalyzed substrate (3) being disposed between the inlet
and outlet openings …" (page 3 of Answer, last para.). As appreciated by
the Examiner, and urged by Appellants, Ishida does not teach that the anchor
layer comprises nickel and aluminum, as presently claimed. Ishida teaches
that the metal anchor layer may be the same type of material as the metal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013