Appeal No. 1996-1897
Application 08/064,145
center (claim 23) and the distance between the center ribs can be larger than twice the rib thickness
(claim 25). The workpiece located between the ribs can be completely enclosed by the crack-free
plastic material enclosure (claims 12 through 14, 16 through 25, 28 and 29; see particularly claims 18
and 19 ). The plastic material enclosures can be formed around the workpiece by injection molding5
(claim 26) and can be separated from the workpiece by cooling to form shrinkage cracks in the
enclosure (claim 27).
Turning now to the ground of rejection under § 103, we have carefully reviewed the record on
this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that the claimed plastic
material enclosures having parallel chucking surfaces for fixing an irregularly contoured metal workpiece
for processing, and processes of making the plastic material enclosures and separating it from a
workpiece, encompassed by appealed claims 12, 13, 20, 23 and 25 through 29, as we have construed
these claims above, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Mushardt and Wendt to
one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.
We find from Mushardt and Wendt that it was well known in the prior art to fix irregularly
contoured metal workpieces in an enclosure that covers at least a portion of the workpiece in order to
secure that workpiece to a machine tool for processing, e.g., by clamping to a grinder, wherein the
supporting enclosure has “a shape which is particularly suitable for convenient manipulation in a . . .
machine tool . . . [and in which] sensitive parts of a workpiece which need not be treated by material
removing tools are shielded” (Mushardt, e.g., page 1, lines 7-41; see also, e.g., page 1, line 122, to
page 2, line 16), such that the enclosed workpiece “can be readily secured to existing workholders” in
machine tools in a “stress-free and deformation-free” manner (Wendt, e.g., page 1, lines 6-57; see also,
e.g., page 2, lines 113-119). The enclosed workpieces exemplified in these references are “turbine
blades” which can be in single or multi-blade configurations (Mushardt, e.g., page 1, lines 60-61; an
enclosed “twin blade” is shown in
5Claims 18 and 19 are substantial duplicates because claim 19 was amended to depend on claim 12 in
the amendment of March 30, 1994 (Paper No. 8). In the event that these claims are held to be
allowable, see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 706.03(K) Duplicate Claims (7th ed., July
1998; 700-37).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007