Appeal No. 2004-1495 Page 10
Application No. 09/526,631
Moore and Amaya. Moreover, we find no suggestion, in Spillman’s broad disclosure of
the use of embedded strain sensors in smart structures, to provide strain sensors in the
mold of Moore. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the rejection of claim 14.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1), we remand this application
to the examiner to review the scope of claim 12 and consider conducting an additional
search in view of such scope. It is not apparent from the record and from the
references cited and applied by the examiner that the examiner has appreciated that
claim 12 is directed to a method of fabricating a product broadly and is not limited to
fabrication of a mold or die. Claim 12 would be met by a method of using a CAD
database and laser-aided computer-controlled direct metal deposition process to
fabricate any product including an integrated sensor. We also note that claim 12 does
not expressly recite that the sensor is fabricated using the direct metal deposition
process.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejections of claims 1-6 are sustained and the rejections of
claims 7-14 are reversed. The application is remanded to the examiner for the reasons
discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007