Ex Parte Galligan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2007

10376836 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL P. GALLIGAN,
ALBERT K. BOND AND
JOSEPH C. DETTLING
____________

Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 21, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-7, 46, and 47.
Claims 1 and 46 are illustrative:
1. A catalyst member comprising:

Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836

a carrier substrate having a metal anchor layer disposed thereon by
electric arc spraying, wherein the anchor layer comprises nickel and
aluminum; and

catalytic material disposed on the anchor layer.

46. A catalyst member comprising:

an open carrier substrate selected from the group consisting of at least
one of monolithic honeycomb carrier substrate, woven mesh, non-mesh,
wadded fibers, and foamed metal, the open substrate having a 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,
the substrate having a metal anchor layer disposed thereon by electric arc
spraying the open substrate from the spray head; and

catalytic material disposed on the metal anchor within the gas flow
passages.

The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Rondeau US 4,027,367 Jun. 7, 1977
Ishida US 4,455,281 Jun. 19, 1984
Donomoto US 4,798,770 Jan. 17, 1989
Gorynin US 5,204,302 Apr. 20, 1993
Draghi US 6,042,879 Mar. 28, 2000
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a catalyst member
comprising a metal anchor layer formed on a carrier substrate by electric arc
spraying and a catalytic material disposed on the anchor layer. Claim 1 on
appeal recites that the anchor layer comprises nickel and aluminum, whereas
claim 46 on appeal defines "an open carrier substrate" selected from the
recited group of substrates, e.g., woven and non-woven mesh. Claim 46 also
recites that the open substrate has "a plurality of fluid flow paths thereon and
2
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
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
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
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
Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836

in intermediate catalyst layers, we agree with the Examiner that these
properties of the alloy are not contingent upon their use.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
Donomoto, Draghi and Gorynin apply the aluminum/nickel alloy by
plasma spraying rather than the claimed electric arc spraying.
Appellants submit that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined the teachings of these references with Ishida because that
"would destroy the desired feature of improving adhesion between the
plasma-sprayed layer and a catalyst formed thereon" (page 11 of
Brief, penultimate sentence). However, the modification proposed by
the Examiner is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ the electric arc spraying of Ishida for
depositing an anchor layer comprising aluminum and nickel.
Finally, regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7
over Gorynin in view of Rondeau and Ishida, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection for the reasons set forth in our decision in
Appellants' co-pending application, U.S. Serial No. 10/376,782, filed
February 28, 2003 (Appeal No. 2007-1018). Suffice it to say that we
agree with the Examiner that, based on the collective teachings of
Gorynin, Rondeau, and Ishida, it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the aluminum/nickel-containing
anchor layer of Gorynin by electric arc spraying as taught by Rondeau
and Ishida. As set forth at pages 8-10 of the Answer, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that a certain balance must be
effected in the determination of selecting either plasma spraying or
7
Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836

electric arc spraying for depositing the anchor layer, including a
typical cost/benefit analysis. Also, from a somewhat different
perspective, as already discussed above and in our decision in the co-
pending application, we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the
teachings of Gorynin and Rondeau, to use an alloy comprising
aluminum and nickel for the anchor layer in Ishida.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results. Indeed, Appellants' Specification attributes no particular
criticality to the selection of an alloy of aluminum and nickel for the
anchor layer (see page 5, ll. 11-18).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well
stated by the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed
claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

8
Appeal 2007-1178
Application 10/376,836

Engelhard Corporation
101 Wood Avenue
P. O. Box 770
Iselin, NJ 08830

9