Appeal No. 2006-2203
Application No. 10/687,231
patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in
the answer.
Concerning the Section 102 rejections over Eldridge ‘734,
Grabbe and Yoshida, appellants’ principal argument is that the
references are directed to electrical contact structures and have
nothing to do with a metal core for maintaining a core in a
desired position with a waxed die. However, we agree with the
examiner that appellants’ preambular claim language does not
serve to distinguish the claimed structure over the structures
described in the applied references. While appellants emphasize
that the cited references do not teach the claimed function of
securing of maintaining the position of the core with respect to
the wax die, appellants have not taken the requisite step in
setting forth any structural differences between core elements
within the scope of the appealed claims and the electrical
components of the applied prior art. In our view, the examiner
has adequately established sufficient sameness between the
claimed and prior art structures, which are all made of
refractory metal, to support the reasonable conclusion that the
components described in the prior art are fully capable of
performing the recited intended use and function. In re
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007