Appeal No. 2003-2058
Application No. 09/407,278
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Carver et al. (Carver) 4,937,768 Jun. 26, 1990
Engwall 5,746,553 May 5, 1998
(filed Apr. 8, 1996)
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Engwall in view of Carver.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain this rejection.
The sole claim-distinction argument advanced by the
appellants on this appeal is that the “tool [of Engwall] uses an
Invar metal forming surface, so Engwall fails to teach or to
suggest a tool having a composite material as the mold surface”
and correspondingly that “Carver fails to cure the deficiencies
of Engwall” (brief, page 3). As correctly indicated in the
answer, however, this argument is based on a clearly erroneous
premise. That is, contrary to the appellants’ apparent belief,
Engwall explicitly teaches using a composite material in forming
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007