Ex Parte Dobesberger et al - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2006-1064                                                                          Page 2                  
               Application No. 10/170,684                                                                                            

                                                         BACKGROUND                                                                  
                       The present invention relates to a process for producing a lightweight foamed                                 
               metal part.  According to Appellants, the produced metal parts have special properties                                
               that can be used in technical applications, such as, energy absorbers in automotive                                   
               technology.  (Brief, page 5).  Representative claim 1, as presented in the appendix to                                
               the Brief, appears below:                                                                                             
                       1. A process for producing a lightweight molded part, comprising (a)                                          
                       introducing a gas into a particle-containing, molten metal to produce a                                       
                       free-flowing metal foam having voids therein, said voids having a                                             
                       monomodal distribution of their dimensions, (b) at least partially                                            
                       introducing the metal foam into a casting die compressing it therein under                                    
                       essentially all-round pressure, and (c) allowing the liquid phase to solidify.                                
                                                                                                                                    
                       The Examiner cited the following references in rejecting the appealed claims:                                 
               Jin et al.  (Jin ‘697)   5,112,697   May  12, 1992                                                                    
               Kenny et al.  (Kenny)   5,281,251   Jan. 25, 1994                                                                     
               ASM Handbook, Vol. 15 Casting, (1988), pages 323 - 326 2                                                              
                       The Examiner entered the following rejections (Answer, pages 3-6):                                            
                       Claims 1-5 and 9-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as obvious over                                   
                       Kenny.                                                                                                        
                       Claims 6-8, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as obvious over                                 
               the combined teachings of Kenny and Jin ‘697.                                                                         



                                                                                                                                    
                       2The Examiner cites the ASM Handbook as rebuttal evidence to Appellants’ arguments.  (Answer,                 
               page 10).                                                                                                             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007