Appeal No. 1998-2702
Application No. 08/466,507
The Rejection Of Claims 5 And 7 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
This rejection is sustained.
Both of these claims require that there be an upstanding
portion in the part, which is recited as a “peak” in claim 5
and a “male topographic feature” in claim 7. As we concluded
above, independent claim 4 is a product-by-process claim and
therefore claim 5, which depends from claim 4, is similarly
directed. Claim 5 adds to the superplastic part that is the
subject of claim 4 a “peak” connected to the part floor
through the corner and the wall. Bertolini discloses a part
manufactured of a superplastic material (column 1, line 13) in
a pressurized molding process. The part has an upstanding
“peak” formed over die portion 16, as seen in Figure 2.
Although not explicitly stated in the patent, it would appear
from Figure 2 that the thickness of all of the elements of the
part shown therein, including the peak, corner and wall, are
substantially the same and substantially uniform, as is
broadly required by the part recited in the claim. From our
perspective, therefore, all of the elements of the part
recited in claim 5 (which, of course, includes those of claim
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007