Appeal 2007-1018
Application 10/376,782
ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from using an anchor
layer comprising nickel and aluminum, which was admittedly known in the
art for bonding catalyst compositions to a metal substrate, in the apparatus of
Ishida.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the disclosure of
Ishida teaches away from applicants [sic, applicants'] claimed invention
because the stainless steels specifically recited in Ishida do not contain
nickel and aluminum" (page 8 of Brief, first full para.). In our view, Ishida's
preference for a match between the metal of the substrate plate and the
anchor layer is not a teaching away from the claimed anchor layer. The
reference disclosure of steel for the substrate is only exemplary, not
exclusive, and presumably indicates a preference for optimum adhesion
between layers of the same material. We find that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to utilize a variety of compositions for
the metal anchor layer in Ishida, including the admittedly known
composition comprising aluminum and nickel. We note that Appellants
have not set forth an argument, let alone objective evidence, with respect to
unexpected results attached to the use of an anchor layer comprising
aluminum and nickel. Indeed, Appellants' Specification indicates that other
compositions for the anchor layer may be used as well, including the steels
employed by Ishida.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 33, 34, and 37 over the
additional disclosure of Fukui, we completely agree with the Examiner that
Fukui establishes the obviousness of using a ceramic or metal material for
the catalytic substrate. As noted by the Examiner, Appellants have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013