Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836
Specification "distinguishes between the perforated metal plates of the type
disclosed in Ishida et al. and the open carrier substrate recited in claims 3, 6,
7, and 47" (page 6 of Brief, second para.). The cited Specification reads as
follows:
An open substrate defines numerous apertures, pores, channels
or similar structural features that cause liquid and/or gas to flow
therethrough in turbulent or substantially non-laminar fashion
and give the substrate a high surface area per overall volume of
the flow path of the fluid through the substrate, e.g., features
that create a high mass transfer zone for the fluid therein. In
contrast, a dense substrate, such as a plate, tube, foil and the
like, has a relatively small surface area per overall volume of
the flow path through the substrate regardless of whether it is
perforated or not, and does not substantially disrupt laminar
flow therethrough.
Notwithstanding Appellants' assertion to the contrary, we
totally agree with the Examiner that Ishida describes an open carrier
substrate which corresponds to the recitation in claim 46 and
Appellants' Specification. According to claim 46, a monolithic
honeycomb carrier substrate and a mesh qualify as an open carrier
substrate, and Appellants' Specification states that substrates having
structural features similar to apertures, pores and channels that cause
turbulent flow qualify as open substrates. With this in mind, we find
no error in the Examiner's factual determination that Ishida expressly
describes carrier substrates that are in the form of Appellants’ mesh
and honeycomb. In particular, the carrier substrate depicted in
Ishida's Figure 5 can be reasonably considered a mesh/honeycomb
structure, particularly since Ishida specifically teaches that "[a]n
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013