Appeal No. 96-1597 Page 10
Application No. 08/152,523
movement of said holding frame.” The appellant has argued that
the quoted feature is not taught in the references, to which
the examiner has not directly responded. The basis for the
examiner’s position is not evident to us. We therefore
conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness is lacking with
regard to the subject matter recited in claim 10, as well as in
claims 11-14, which are dependent therefrom.
We reach the same conclusion with respect to claim 15.
This claim adds to claim 9 a side chamber to the main chamber
in the crucible, and a spillway connecting the two so that the
side chamber receives any overflow as a mold moves into the
quenching material. Such a feature is not taught in the
applied references, and we find a prima facie case of
obviousness to be lacking here.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-15 is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 9 and 16 is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007