Appeal No. 1996-3597 Page 8
Application No. 08/050,825
identifying all of the particular and herein claimed method
steps identically disclosed by Frahme and those not so
disclosed, and further showing how the disparate teachings of
all of the applied references including Frahme would have led
a skilled artisan to modify the process of Frahme to a process
corresponding to appellant's claimed method as a whole. Here,
the examiner has not even identified where Frahme teaches any
method of making a mold having a cavity therein defined by a
reverse image of the outer contour of a model that was used in
forming the mold and subsequently removed therefrom, let alone
appellant's method. The portions of Frahme identified by the
examiner (answer, page 3) are not even directed to a mold
making method involving the curing of a polymer embedding a
model that is subsequently removed therefrom but rather the
use of a particularly assembled mold with inner and outer
members to form a burner block. Based on this record, we find
ourselves in substantially complete agreement with appellant's
views with respect to the lack of merit in the examiner's
stated position (brief, pages 16-25).
From our perspective, the examiner simply has not
established a factual basis upon which to establish the prima
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007