Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836
expanded metal refers to a screen-shaped thin metal plate wherein a
multiplicity of slits of short length are rendered in alternate and
intermittent manner and tensile force is applied perpendicularly to
those slits to form meshes," wherein the expanded metal plate of
Figure 5 comprises metal portions 6A constituting meshes (col. 4, ll.
4-11). We also find no error in the Examiner's analysis that the
perforated metal plate depicted in Figures 9-11 of Ishida can be
reasonably characterized as a monolithic honeycomb substrate, and
Appellants have not established otherwise (see page 5 of Answer,
penultimate para.). Moreover, contrary to Appellants' argument, it is
not clear on this record that a perforated, tubular metal substrate is not
encompassed by the claimed "open carrier substrate," inasmuch as
Appellants' Specification states that the perforated, tubular metal
substrate of Figure 2H formed "a catalyst member in accordance with
the present invention" (page 8 of Specification, ll. 12-13).
We also agree with the Examiner that the claim language
"having a portion of the surface area thereof obscured relative to a line
of sight from a spray head" is a limitation on the open substrate, not
the fluid flow paths thereof, as asserted by Appellants. In essence, we
agree with the reasoning set forth at page 11-12 of the Answer,
namely, that the backside of Ishida's metal plate and projections are
obscured relative to a line of sight from a spray head. Also, we note
that it is implicit in Ishida's disclosure at column 6, lines 35 et seq.,
that catalyst layers disposed at opposite sides of the expanded metal
substrate have portions thereof that are obscured relative to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013