Appeal No. 2003-1583
Application 09/253,235
The appellants argue that JP ‘345 does not disclose or
suggest 1) transferring an amount of semisolid metal to the
casting device which is less than 10% of the volume of semisolid
metal in the container as required by claim 40, or 2) replacing
the transferred portion of semisolid metal with a like quantity
of molten metal as required by claim 41 (brief, pages 25-27).
The examiner argues that to carry out the JP ‘345 casting process
at steady state, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
added molten metal to the vessel in small increments, including
increments less than 10% of the semisolid metal volume, so as to
minimize temperature fluctuations in the semisolid metal bath
(answer, page 9). The appellants point out that JP ‘345 does not
disclose that the apparatus is operated at steady state, and
argue that the disclosure leaves the impression that the
apparatus is operated batchwise (reply brief, page 8). The
appellants do not point out, and it is not apparent, what it is
about the disclosure that leaves that impression. Because
JP ‘345 does not limit the disclosure to either batch or
continuous operation, it reasonably appears that the reference
would have fairly suggested either of these modes of operation to
one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner’s finding that in
the continuous mode, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007