Appeal No. 1996-3597 Page 8 Application No. 08/050,825 identifying all of the particular and herein claimed method steps identically disclosed by Frahme and those not so disclosed, and further showing how the disparate teachings of all of the applied references including Frahme would have led a skilled artisan to modify the process of Frahme to a process corresponding to appellant's claimed method as a whole. Here, the examiner has not even identified where Frahme teaches any method of making a mold having a cavity therein defined by a reverse image of the outer contour of a model that was used in forming the mold and subsequently removed therefrom, let alone appellant's method. The portions of Frahme identified by the examiner (answer, page 3) are not even directed to a mold making method involving the curing of a polymer embedding a model that is subsequently removed therefrom but rather the use of a particularly assembled mold with inner and outer members to form a burner block. Based on this record, we find ourselves in substantially complete agreement with appellant's views with respect to the lack of merit in the examiner's stated position (brief, pages 16-25). From our perspective, the examiner simply has not established a factual basis upon which to establish the primaPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007