Appeal No. 2004-1495 Page 6
Application No. 09/526,631
the body be constructed using direct metal deposition. In other words, the claim
language is sufficiently broad to encompass the modified Arai mold with the nickel,
copper and chromium or titanium layers being added by a thermal deposition spray
process to an iron substrate in view of Prinz as discussed above.
For the reasons discussed above, we do not find appellant’s arguments
persuasive as to the patentability of claim 1 over Arai in view of Prinz and thus shall
sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 which appellant has
grouped therewith (brief, page 4).
Rejection (2)
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the product shaping or
forming portion is a die. As eventually recognized by the examiner on page 16 of the
answer, Arai discloses either a mold or a die in column 5, line 31. Thus, we regard the
reliance on the additional teachings of Moore as mere surplusage. For the reasons
discussed above with regard to claim 1, it follows that we shall also sustain the rejection
of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Arai in view of Prinz and Moore.
We shall not, however, sustain the rejection of claim 10 as being unpatentable
over Arai in view of Prinz and Moore. We appreciate that Moore discloses a die-casting
machine in which temperature feedback is used to control the flow of coolant through
servo-controlled coolant valves. Arai’s molding device, on the other hand, uses
temperature feedback to control the induction heating and not the coolant flow. As
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007