Appeal No. 96-1597 Page 2
Application No. 08/152,523
The appellant’s invention is directed to a method (claims
1-8) and apparatus (claims 9-16) for the directed
solidification of molten metal. The claims on appeal have been
reproduced in an appendix to the Brief.
THE APPLIED REFERENCES
Matsunaga et al. (Matsunaga) 3,635,279 Jan.
18, 1972
Salkeld 4,108,236 Aug. 22,
1978
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Salkeld in view of Matsunaga.
The rejection is explained in Paper No. 8 (the final
rejection).
The arguments of the appellant in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner are set forth in the Brief and
the Reply Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007