Appeal No. 1996-1897
Application 08/064,145
several spaced apart ribs connected along a surface of said metal workpiece through webs;
wherein the ribs and the webs have cross-sectional surfaces of approximately the same size;
whereby a crack-free enclosure is formed.
The appealed claims as represented by claim 12 are drawn to a crack-free plastic material2
enclosure having parallel chucking surfaces for fixing an irregularly contoured metal workpiece for
processing comprising at least several spaced apart ribs connected along a surface of the workpiece
through webs wherein the ribs and the webs have cross-sectional surfaces of approximately the same
size. The plastic material enclosures can be formed around the workpiece by injection molding and can
be separated from the workpiece by cooling to form shrinkage cracks in the enclosure.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Wendt 2149328 Jun. 12, 1985
(published UK Patent Application, United Kingdom)
Mushardt et al. (Mushardt) 2166070 Apr. 30, 1986
(published UK Patent Application, United Kingdom)
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wendt. The examiner has also rejected appealed claims 12 through 14 and 16 through
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mushardt in view of Wendt. We reverse the
ground of rejection under § 102(b) and affirm the ground of rejection under § 103.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants, we
refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We begin our consideration of the issues in this appeal by determining the invention
encompassed by the appealed claims 12, 13, 20, 23 and 25 through 29 as they stands before us,
mindful that we must give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the terms of the appealed
2Appellants state in their brief (page 4) that the appealed claims “do not stand or fall together” but
provide separate argument with respect to the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 only with
respect to claims 12, 28, 29, 20, 25, 26 and 27 as well as claims 13 and 14 and claims 23 and 24
(pages 5-11). Thus, we consider claims 16 through 19, 21 and 22 as standing or falling with claim 12.
Accordingly, we decide this appeal with respect to this ground of rejection based on appealed claims
12, 13, 20, 23 and 25 through 29. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007