Appeal No. 2004-1495 Page 2
Application No. 09/526,631
such smart dies and molds by a direct-metal deposition process (specification, page 1).
A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Moore et al. (Moore) 4,493,362 Jan. 15, 1985
Arai 5,062,786 Nov. 5, 1991
Prinz et al. (Prinz) 5,278,442 Jan. 11, 1994
Spillman Jr. (Spillman) 5,440,300 Aug. 8, 1995
Amaya et al. (Amaya) 5,976,457 Nov. 2, 1999
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 1-3, 5 and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Arai in view of Prinz.
(2) Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Arai in view of Prinz and Moore.
(3) Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai
in view of Prinz and Spillman.
(4) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arai
in view of Prinz, Moore and Spillman.
(5) Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Moore in view of Amaya.
1 As explained by the examiner on pages 2-3 of the answer, the inclusion of claims 7-9 in this
rejection in the final rejection (Paper No. 9) was in error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007