Appeal No. 1998-0187
Application No. 08/247,518
claim 11 also stands or falls with claim 8. In re Nielson,
supra. Accordingly, we will also sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over
Matsuhisa or Sterzel in view of Sims, Kliegel and Howatt.
Rejection (3)
We now turn our attention to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 15, 28 through 32 and 35 through 37 as
unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Davis. Each of
independent claims 15, 28 and 37 recites, inter alia, the
process steps of injection molding a ceramic article having an
outer surface defining a recess and a sprue; molding a plug
separate and distinct from the article, the plug having a
sidewall or surface configured and dimensioned to
substantially fill the recess; forming an article and plug
assembly by inserting the plug into the recess; and firing the
article and plug assembly to secure the article and the plug
together.
The examiner describes Nakamura as teaching a process of
forming a ceramic article by injection molding two ceramic
components, assembling the components to form an assembly and
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007