Appeal 2007-0505
Application 10/402,476
Claim 17 as unpatentable over Quinlan and Marx in view of Daly and
further in view of Nishimura (id. 9); and
Claim 19 as unpatentable over Quinlan and Marx in view of Hager (id.).
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the combined teachings
of Quinlan and Marx, the combination common to all grounds of rejection,
renders the claimed methods encompassed by independent claims 1 and 16
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art as contended by the
Examiner. A discussion of the remaining references relied on is not
necessary to our decision.
The plain language of representative claim 1 specifies a method
comprising at least the recited sequential steps which result in the insert
molded with a first material into the lost core assembly; the insert/first
material containing “lost core” assembly molded with a second material into
a plastic article such that the outer surface of the insert is completely covered
by the second material; and removing the first material from the insert/first
material/second material containing plastic article to form a cavity in the
plastic article including the insert, wherein the insert defines a portion of,
that is, not the entire, surface of the cavity. The claim language requires that
the first and second material must be moldable and in fact molded, that the
insert used in the first step becomes part of the final plastic article. The
method of fabricating an outboard assembly encompassed by claim 16
specifies the same method steps as claim 1.
We find Quinlan would have acknowledged that the “lost core
method” was known in the art for forming molded articles with internal
surfaces, “wherein metal or salt was formed in the same shape as the desired
internal passage or irregular surface;” “[t]he article . . . molded around the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013