Appeal No. 96-1597 Page 7
Application No. 08/152,523
The combined teachings of Salkeld and Matsunaga therefore
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of claim 1 or, it follows, of
claims 2-8, which depend therefrom.
Independent apparatus claim 9 also stands rejected on the
basis of Salkeld and Matsunaga. Claim 9 requires the presence
of a heating chamber having an open bottom, a crucible
containing a molten quenching fluid beneath the heating
chamber, a thermal insulating layer floating on the quenching
material and in contact with the bottom of the heating chamber,
and a mold movable vertically from the heating chamber through
the insulating layer and into the quenching material. Our
understanding of the sole argument presented by the appellant
with regard to this claim is that it would not have been
obvious to substitute the thermal insulating layer of Matsunaga
for the baffle of Salkeld (Brief, page 7). However, this
argument is predicated upon a limitation that is not present in
the claims, and therefore cannot be persuasive. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). Although
the examiner has explained the rejection in terms of two
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007