Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836
pertinent line of sight. We also agree with the Examiner that even if,
for the sake of argument, the obscured surface area is that of the flow
path, "the 'surface area' of the flow paths would be the entire volume
of the reactor, which would include the back side of the metal plate"
(page 12 of Answer, first para.).
We now turn to the § 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 46, and 47
over Ishida in view of Donomoto or Draghi. Although Ishida, like
Appellants, discloses a catalyst member having an anchor layer
deposited on a carrier substrate by electric arc spraying, the reference
does not expressly teach that the anchor layer comprises nickel and
aluminum. However, we concur with the Examiner that Donomoto
and Draghi, especially in light of the admitted prior art to Gorynin,
evidences the obviousness of utilizing an anchor layer comprising
aluminum and nickel for the catalyst member of Ishida. As explained
by the Examiner, Donomoto and Draghi establish that it was known in
the art that deposited alloys of aluminum and nickel are heat and
corrosion resistant, properties desired by Ishida for the anchor layer.
Also, Gorynin, as acknowledged by Appellants, specifically discloses
an anchor layer for a catalyst on a substrate comprising the presently
claimed aluminum and nickel, thereby alleviating any concerns about
the compatibility of an anchor layer comprising aluminum and nickel
and an overlying catalyst composition. While Appellants argue that
Donomoto and Draghi do not teach that intermediate layers of nickel
and aluminum have improved heat or corrosion resistance when used
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013