Appeal No. 98-2559
Application 08/633,101
document, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the6
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). It follows that we likewise reverse the
rejection of claims 11 through 13 since they stand or fall
with claim 10.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of casting a composite
article comprising, inter alia, the step of preforming a low
density foamed metal material insert including forming a
5(...continued)
U.S. Patent No. 5,221,324. It is noted that this patent
teaches a product having a porous interior structure and a
smooth exterior skin (column 2, lines 18 and 19).
6In our evaluation of the applied document, we have
considered all of the disclosure thereof for what it would
have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account
not only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to
draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007