Appeal No. 1997-2075 Page 11
Application No. 08/362,362
Claim 9
With respect to dependent claim 9, the examiner found
(final rejection, pp. 3-4) that
Vaccari in view of Duley discloses the invention
substantially as claimed, including not painting the part
and forming a recast layer as claimed (page 62, col. 3,
lines 8-9) but does not show removal of the recast layer.
Referring to col. 1, lines 62-65 and col. 2, lines
28-31, Fishter teaches that recast layers cause premature
cracking and should be removed.
The examiner determined (final rejection, p. 4) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to remove the
recast layer to prevent premature cracking as taught by
Fishter.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 16) that the above-noted
obviousness determination made by the examiner is in error
since Vaccari teaches against forming a recast layer. We do
not agree. We agree with the examiner's analysis set forth on
pages 10-11 of the answer that Vaccari does not teach away
from forming a recast layer. In this regard, we agree with
the examiner, that considering Vaccari's teachings as a whole,
that Vaccari teaches both a preferred embodiment which
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007