Appeal No. 2006-0010 Page 15
Application No. 10/170,538
geometric design of a gas outlet as a tool for controlling the cell size/cell size distribution
in the foam of Jin '358. (Brief, pp. 56-57).
These argument are not persuasive. As stated above, Jin >358 recognizes that
cell size of the foam being formed is controlled by adjusting various parameters. Jin
>358 expressly states that the nozzle shape, i.e., size and configuration, affects the cell
size of the foam being formed. (Col. 3, ll. 17-21). Thus, Jin >358 is suggestive of
adjusting the nozzle configuration so as to achieve the proper cell size of the foam
being formed.
Appellants= arguments regarding claim 46 are not persuasive. (Brief, pp. 60-61).
Jin >358 is suggestive of adjusting the flow rate of the gas so as to achieve the proper
cell size of the foam being formed. (Col. 3, ll. 17-21).
Appellants= arguments appearing in the Reply Brief have been fully considered
and addressed above. The arguments presented reiterate the Appellants= position
stated in the extensive arguments of the Brief.
Claims 33-36 describe the gas feeding pipe as comprising a ceramic material.
Claim 38 describes a process for producing a foam utilizing the device of claim 35.
Claims 59 and 63 describe the distance the pipe is inserted for blowing the gas into the
metal melt as corresponding to the stated formula. The Examiner has failed to identify
the portion of the Jin >358 reference that discloses these features. The Examiner has
also failed to identify where in the prior art it is known to use ceramic material in the gas
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007