Ex parte SHAIKH et al. - Page 8




              Appeal No. 2000-0093                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/874,812                                                                                 

                     undercut or hidden interior surfaces.[4]  However, it is [sic, was] known that                      
                     the multiple axises [sic] cutting machine is [sic, was] commercial[ly]                              
                     available.  It would have been obvious to use the multiple axises [sic]                             
                     cutting machine in the apparatus of [the] cited prior art references for                            
                     making a pattern of complex shape if that particular complex shape of                               
                     casting is designated [final rejection, page 3].                                                    
                     Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis.  In re                         
              Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967).  In making such a                           
              rejection, the examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and                  
              may not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,                        
              unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual                    
              basis.  Id.                                                                                                
                     In the present case, the examiner has failed to advance any factual support for                     
              the rationale employed to cure the acknowledged deficiencies of the Tamura references                      
              with respect to the subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 8, 13                                  
              and 26.  While multiple-axis milling machines may have been known in the art at the                        
              time of the appellants’ invention, there is nothing in either Tamura reference which                       
              would have suggested modifying the methods respectively disclosed therein by using                         
              such a machine to carve interior surfaces of the sort required by these claims.  This lack                 
              of suggestion belies the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the subject                    

                     4 In the answer, the examiner makes the contradictory statement that “[t]he interior surfaces of    
              both Mazda [Tamura] references are considered as free-form cavity since they do not have surface           
              generated as a result of revolving about an axis” (page 4).  According to Webster’s Third New              
              International Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co. 1971), the term “free form” means “an asymmetrical           
              biomorphic and usu. non-rectilinear shape”.  Neither Tamura reference discloses an interior surface        
              having such a shape.                                                                                       
                                                           8                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007