Appeal No. 95-4846
Application 08/023,592
references.” See Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
We find that the examiner has not provided any reason,
suggestion, or motivation, and we perceive none, as to why
the artisan would modify the centrifugal casting method of
Hoppe in view of the methods disclosed by Probst and Roberts.
Furthermore, the claimed subject matter, in general terms,
is a method of making an impeller having specific polyurethane
inner and outer portions with different flexibilities. On this
record, the composite impeller having two portions with differing
flexibilities and hardnesses has not been asserted to lack
novelty. Indeed, the impeller comprising a disk having inner and
outer portions of polyurethane resin having different flexibi-
lities, the outer portion being bonded to the inner portion and
having greater flexibility than the inner portion, has been
patented in U.S. Patent 5,201,635, of which appellant states this
application is a division. In view of In re Ochiai and In re3
Brouwer , the language in a process claim which recites making4
71 F.3d 1565, 1572, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 1995).3
77 F.3d 422, 425-26, 37 USPQ2d 1663, 1665-66 (Fed. Cir. 1996).4
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007