Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836
being characterized by having a portion of the surface area thereon obscured
relative to a line of sight from a spray head."
Appealed claims 3, 6, 7, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ishida. The appealed claims also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 1-7, 46, and 47 over Ishida in view of Donomoto or
Draghi,
(b) claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 over Gorynin in view of Rondeau.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that the claimed
subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer,
which we incorporate herein, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We consider first the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, and 46
under § 102 over Ishida. Ishida, like Appellants, discloses a catalyst
member comprising a metal anchor layer coated on the substrate by electric
arc spraying and a catalytic material disposed on the metal anchor layer. It
is Appellants' contention that the substrate of Ishida is not an "open carrier
substrate," and also that the catalyst member of Ishida does not have the
presently claimed "plurality of fluid flow paths thereon and being
characterized by having a portion of the surface area thereof obscured
relative to a line of sight from a spray head."
For the claimed "open carrier substrate," Appellants refer to their
Specification at page 10, lines 21-27. Appellants assert that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013