Appeal 2007-0086
Application 10/845,785
effective upon modifying the initial composition by removing water” (Br. 8).
This argument is unpersuasive.
As correctly found by the Examiner, Brown’s foundry mix contains a
catalytically effective amount of an acid catalyst (col. 2, ll. 6-11 and 56-60).
We understand the Appellant’s point that the acid catalyst is initially diluted
with water and not catalytically active until the water is removed (id.).
However, we find nothing and the Appellant points to nothing in claim 1
which excludes an initially diluted acid catalyst from which water must be
removed in order to initiate the catalytic reaction.
To the extent Appellant believes Brown’s foundry mix would not
have the claim 1 work time of 3-10 minutes (Br. 9), such a belief is without
support on this record. As noted by the Examiner (and not disputed by
Appellant with any reasonable specificity), “it is inherent that the shaped
foundry of Brown exhibit[s] the presently claimed work time given that it
undergoes an identical process to the one presently claimed” (Answer 5).
This inherency position is also supported by Brown’s disclosure of water
removal to obtain shaped foundry specimens which have a sufficient green
hardness that they can be removed from the mold or pattern without danger
of breaking (col. 3, l. 28 - col. 4, l. 17). This is because the aforementioned
steps and parameters (e.g., hardness) of Brown correspond to those disclosed
(e.g., Specification 1) and claimed by Appellants.
In Brown’s above-discussed embodiment, water is removed with a
heated air stream to produce green hardness (80-90) sufficient to allow
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013