Appeal No. 2000-0093
Application No. 08/874,812
interior surfaces to replicate the graphic-model and form a unitary
investment pattern;
(e) forming a mold around said pattern, and
(f) casting metal within said mold while removing the pattern from
such mold either by evaporation during pouring of the molten metal
thereinto or by melting or dissolution prior thereto.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:2
Tamura (Tamura ‘541) JP 64-034,541 Feb. 06, 1989
Tamura (Tamura ‘340) JP 01-178,340 Jul. 14, 1989
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 13 through 19 and 22 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 through 11, 13 through 19 and 22 through 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over either Tamura ‘541 or Tamura ‘340.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10) and to the examiner’s
final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 11) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.3
2 Copies of the English language translations of these references which were mailed to the
appellants with the decision in the prior appeal (see n.1, supra) are appended hereto for convenience.
3 In the final rejection and answer, the examiner mentions a number of references which are of
record, but not included in the statement of the § 103(a) rejection, to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, however, whether or not in a minor
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007