Appeal No. 95-1042
Application 07/964,002
Thus, appellants argue, the thermoplastic sheet supports
disclosed by Park do not qualify as fugitive polymer supports for
appellants’ method because “they tend to warp or curl on heating,
distorting the green tape preforms supported thereon” (brief,
page 9). We do not find this argument to be convincing for the
following reasons.
First, Park does not teach that the supports in his process
actually warp or curl. He states that “the tape itself undergoes
some warping when subjected to heat” (col. 6, lines 51-53), but
indicates that spindles 19 on which the tape is supported while
being dried are used to prevent such warping (col. 6, lines 45-
53).
Second, appellants have not established that the warping
referred to by Park damages the preform, and that such damage
would be present in the film after firing. Also, appellants have
not established that support films made of the materials
disclosed in their specification, i.e., acrylic polymers and
copolymers and polyalkyl carbonate polymers, do not warp to some
extent when heated.
Third, not all of the support film materials disclosed by
Park are thermoplastic as argued by appellants (brief, pages 8-
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007