Appeal 2007-1488
Application 10/809,072
1 contend that “[t]here is no suggestion or motivation” in the prior art
2 references “to modify any of the inventions [described in the references] as
3 suggested by the Examiner.” (Appeal Br. 11.)
4 We affirm all three rejections.
5
6 ISSUE
7 Have Applicants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
8 one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the
9 system of Monte ‘468 or Monte ‘469 to include a helical crystal (grain)
10 selector such as that shown in Burd, thus arriving at a system encompassed
11 by appealed claim 1?
12 Have Applicants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
13 one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the
14 system of Burd to include a seed crystal as taught in Monte ‘468 or Monte
15 ‘469, thus arriving at a system encompassed by appealed claim 1?
16 Have Applicants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
17 one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the
18 system of Giamei to include a grain selector support as shown in Monte
19 ‘468, Monte ‘469, or Burd, thus arriving at a system encompassed by
20 appealed claim 1?
21
22 FINDINGS OF FACT
23 1. Applicants’ Specification states that Figure 1 shows “an
24 exemplary investment casting system 10.” (Specification,
25 [0022].)
26 2. Applicants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013