Appeal 2007-0505
Application 10/402,476
damaging the molded object (Marx, e.g., col. 2, ll. 21-67). Marx discloses
an embodiment in which a support base containing a tool is injection molded
with a first material to form an integral tool and sacrificial insert; the tool is
separated from the sacrificial insert; a second material is injected into the
support base containing the sacrificial insert to form an integral sacrificial
insert and molded object; and the sacrificial insert is destructively
disengaged from the molded object to form the final object (id., e.g., col. 3,
ll. 1-14, and col. 6, ll. 30-54).
Marx defines “sacrificial insert” as “one or more component(s)
designed to form the interior, exterior and both the interior and exterior of
the product being molded” and can be molded from thermoplastic and
thermoset material (id., e.g., col. 4, ll. 10-22, and col. 5, ll. 15-27). Marx
defines “tool” as “one or more durable component(s) such as metal, which
may be attached, permanently or removably, to the support base to form
interior and/or exterior features of the product being molded or of the
sacrificial insert being molded,” which can include “mold cavities, cores,
collapsible cores, multi-piece elements, etc.” (id,. col. 4, ll. 23-30). Marx
defines “support base” as “a metal cavity that serves to support the
‘sacrificial insert’ and ‘tool’” (id. col. 4, ll. 31-37).
We agree with Appellant that Quinlan and Marx do not describe “lost
core” processes either separately or as combined by the Examiner, and thus,
would have not rendered the claimed methods of claims 1 and 16, as
interpreted above, prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art.
Quinlan does not support the Examiner’s finding that Quinlan’s method
involves a “lost core” method differing from the claimed method as the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013