Ex Parte Dando - Page 8



                 Appeal 2007-0086                                                                                     
                 Application 10/845,785                                                                               

                 removal of the specimen from the mold whereupon final curing occurs under                            
                 room temperature conditions (col. 3, l. 28 - col. 4, l. 17).  This final curing at                   
                 room temperature may require as much as 3 hours (col. 4, ll. 9-13) but may                           
                 require much less time, for example, 10 minutes (Example 1; col. 4, ll. 30-                          
                 33).  Contrary to the Appellant’s argument (Br. 10), this last mentioned cure                        
                 time satisfies claim 40 which recites “the foundry slope [sic, shape] is                             
                 substantially cured within 15 minutes” (and therefore encompasses a                                  
                 complete cure within 15 minutes).  This claim also is satisfied by Brown’s                           
                 alternative embodiment wherein a heated gas stream is passed through the                             
                 specimen until complete curing is achieved in 5 minutes or less (col. 6, ll.                         
                 10-14, ll. 22-37, ll. 48-55; col. 8, ll. 5-8, ll. 44-47).                                            
                        For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, the Examiner has                           
                 established a prima facie case of unpatentability based on anticipation with                         
                 respect to claims 1 and 40 (i.e., the only claims argued in the record of this                       
                 appeal) which the Appellant has failed to successfully rebut with argument                           
                 or evidence of patentability.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1444,                                   
                 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).   Therefore, we hereby sustain the                            
                 § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 11-18, 26-30, and 38-40 as being anticipated                          
                 by Brown.  We also sustain the alternative § 103 rejection of these claims                           
                 based on the proposition that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.                            
                 In re Fracalossi,  681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982).                                 
                 The other § 103 rejections of the remaining claims on appeal are sustained                           


                                                          8                                                           



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

Last modified: September 9, 2013