Appeal No. 2006-0010 Page 12
Application No. 10/170,538
Regarding claims 29-32 and 36, the Examiner asserts that Jin et al '358 shows
all aspects of the above claims except the use of more than a single pipe. The
Examiner asserts that motivation to multiply the numbers of a component shown singly
in the prior art (i.e., the gas pipes) in order to produce a multiplied effect, would have
been a modification obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made. Specifically, the Examiner states A[i]n order to produce a larger quantity of
bubbles, motivation to employ 2 or 3 pipes, rather than the single pipe shown by . . . .
Jin et al'358, would have been a modification obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made.@ (Answer, p. 6).
Appellants argue that Athis rejection is without merit already for the reason that
the system of Jin'358 does not operate in essentially the same manner and with
essentially the same result as the device of the present invention.@ Appellants argue
that the operation of the device of the present invention and the device of Jin'358 is
based on fundamentally different principles and the results thereof (foamed metal
foams) are different as well. In particular, Appellants argue that the gas bubbles of Jin
>358 are produced by a rotatable air injection shaft 15 which extends down into the
vessel at an angle to the horizontal. (Brief, pp. 47-48).
Appellants= arguments are not persuasive. It is not disputed that Jin >358
discloses a device for blowing gas into a foamable metal melt comprising at least one
gas feeding pipe that projects into the metal melt. The device recited in the claims does
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007