Appeal 2007-0086
Application 10/845,785
removal of the specimen from the mold whereupon final curing occurs under
room temperature conditions (col. 3, l. 28 - col. 4, l. 17). This final curing at
room temperature may require as much as 3 hours (col. 4, ll. 9-13) but may
require much less time, for example, 10 minutes (Example 1; col. 4, ll. 30-
33). Contrary to the Appellant’s argument (Br. 10), this last mentioned cure
time satisfies claim 40 which recites “the foundry slope [sic, shape] is
substantially cured within 15 minutes” (and therefore encompasses a
complete cure within 15 minutes). This claim also is satisfied by Brown’s
alternative embodiment wherein a heated gas stream is passed through the
specimen until complete curing is achieved in 5 minutes or less (col. 6, ll.
10-14, ll. 22-37, ll. 48-55; col. 8, ll. 5-8, ll. 44-47).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of unpatentability based on anticipation with
respect to claims 1 and 40 (i.e., the only claims argued in the record of this
appeal) which the Appellant has failed to successfully rebut with argument
or evidence of patentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1444,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, we hereby sustain the
§ 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 11-18, 26-30, and 38-40 as being anticipated
by Brown. We also sustain the alternative § 103 rejection of these claims
based on the proposition that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
The other § 103 rejections of the remaining claims on appeal are sustained
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013