Appeal 2007-0921
Application 10/793,878
embodiment. Each heated billet includes an oxide surface coating that
maintains the billet’s shape as the matrix material in the inner portion of the
billet softens (Carden; col. 5, ll. 48-51). Carden discloses that the billet
volume is selected to be substantially the same as the volume of the die
cavity (Carden, col. 4, l. 67 - col. 5, l. 3). Moreover, it is disclosed that the
billet diameter is substantially the same as that of the sleeve 5 (Fig. 4) for the
second embodiment so as to displace air (Carden, col. 5, ll. 57-60). A piston
6 having a plunger tip 7 (Fig. 3 or Fig. 4) is used by Carden to rapidly force
the semi-solid billet into die cavity 10 (Fig. 3 or Fig. 4).
Cook, on the other hand, is concerned with introducing molten metal
into a die under vacuum (Cook, Abstract, col. 3, l. 10 - col. 4, l. 19).
Against this disclosure of the references, Appellants’ arguments are
persuasive in negating the Examiner’s prima facie obviousness assertions
because, unlike Cook, Carden teaches a billet supply system wherein the
exposure of the billets to air during their heating is required to form an oxide
coating thereon and wherein the billets are supplied individually to the die
cavity in a semi-solid state, not as a molten metal (Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 2-4).
This is especially the case because the Examiner has not presented a
persuasive and explicit analysis as to how the vacuum device of Cook would
be attached and used with the open inlet of the billet supply chamber and the
sleeve of the device of Carden by one of ordinary skill in the art so as to
effect the Examiner’s conjectured explosion prevention while also
permitting the rapid and open inlet billet supply arrangement of Carden to
function. In other words, the Examiner has not provided a reasonably
complete and articulated rationale founded on the record evidence showing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013