Appeal 2007-2837
Application 10/924,498
(4) Liu discloses that the resulting “hollow ceramic shell” may be
supported by casting sand in a casting flask “to make a casting
mold,” and the ceramic coating remains after the molten metal has
been poured into the mold (¶¶ [0042] and [0044] through [0050];
see Figs. 2A-2F).
Under § 102, anticipation requires that the prior art reference disclose,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, every limitation of the
claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Applying the preceding legal principle to the factual findings from the
record in this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established that
Liu discloses every limitation of claim 1 on appeal. As shown by factual
findings (1) and (2) listed above (and Fig. 2D), we determine that Liu
discloses the steps of providing a computer data file representing a “mold
having a mold cavity” and a gating system, printing the mold in a plurality
of layers from a mold-forming material, supplying molten metal to the
“cavity of the mold” through a gating system, and cooling the molten metal
to form a casting. As shown by factual findings (3) and (4) listed above, we
determine that the “hollow ceramic shell” taught by Liu functions as a
casting mold, regardless of the nomenclature, and has a mold cavity which
the molten metal fills (see especially Fig. 2C). We determine that the
ceramic coating is not sacrificed, but is removed after cooling of the cast
product (see Fig. 2E and ¶ [0049]). Therefore, we determine that Liu
describes every limitation of claim 1 on appeal, and we affirm the decision
of the Examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013