Appeal No. 2004-1495 Page 5
Application No. 09/526,631
to flaw or deformation, while maintaining fine uneven portion
or mirror surface characteristic.
The examiner determined that Arai lacked a body constructed using a direct
metal deposition process and a surrounding portion2 as called for in claim 1. The
examiner’s position appears to be that it would have been obvious to fabricate the mold
components 2A, 2B of Arai using the thermal spray deposition method of Prinz to
facilitate production of articles having undercuts and irregular shapes.
To the extent that the lamination using electroforming process of Arai may not be
considered to be “a direct metal deposition process” as used in claim 1, we agree with
the examiner that Prinz provides ample motivation to form the nickel, copper and
chromium or titanium layers of Arai’s mold using a thermal deposition spray process
wherein material is incrementally built up in thin layers to overcome the disadvantages
of known lamination techniques cited by Prinz in column 2, lines 17-23.
Appellant’s argument on page 5 of the brief that Arai is not directed to articles
having undercuts and irregular shapes is not well taken. As illustrated in Figure 6, the
molds 2A, 2B are shaped so as to mold a Fresnel lens having an irregular shape.
We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s argument on page 5 of the brief to the
effect that Prinz lacks any teaching that the thermal spray deposition process is used for
anything more than a few layers. We find no requirement in claim 1 that the entirety of
2 We, on the contrary, consider the material of Arai’s moving side mold 2B surrounding the cavity
thereof to be a surrounding portion as called for in claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007