Appeal 2007-0086
Application 10/845,785
high productivity and that the invention is disclosed as increasing
productivity without adversely affecting the work time (Specification 4:1-4)
(Br. 7).
We share the Appellant’s implicit position that an artisan would
recognize in the above-discussed disclosures of the Specification at pages 1
and 4 a description of the here-claimed invention wherein the foundry mix is
defined as “having a work time of 3-10 minutes” (Claim 1). This is
particularly so because the invention is described as not adversely affecting
work time (Specification 4).
It follows that we cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 112, 1st ¶, rejection
of claims 1-40 as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Prior Art Rejections
In contesting these rejections, Appellant separately argues only
dependent claim 40 (Br. 2, 10). Therefore, in discussing these rejections, we
will focus on independent claim 1, which is the broadest appealed claim, and
separately argued dependent claim 40.
The Examiner’s § 102 rejection of these (and other) claims is well
taken for the reasons fully detailed by the Examiner (Answer 4-5, 8-9). The
Appellant argues that “[t]he compositions required by Brown are diluted in
water [and] do not contain a catalytically effective amount of acid catalyst
prior to shaping the foundry mix [because the catalyst] . . . only becomes
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013