Appeal 2007-1765
Application 10/215,276
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
The Appellants do not dispute that Dahlin, like Appellants, discloses
an additive method for building a three-dimensional model with a modeling
machine by depositing a moisture-sensitive thermoplastic material. A
principal argument advanced by Appellants is that Dahlin does not disclose
the step of supplying the thermoplastic material to the machine in a cassette
but, rather, Dahlin supplies the thermoplastic material on spools that are
placed in a drybox of the machine.
We agree with Appellants that elements 42 and 56 of Dahlin are
spools, and not cassettes. This fact, however, does not militate against a
finding of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Significantly, Dahlin
expressly discloses that it was known in the art to provide and supply the
modeling material either in a cassette or on a spool (see col. 1, ll. 41-47).
Consequently, although the system of Dahlin depicts the use of a spool for
providing the modeling material, we are convinced that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ either a cassette or a
spool for delivering the modeling material. In our view, it would have been
an obvious matter of design choice to modify the machine of Dahlin in order
to receive a cassette containing the modeling material.
Appellants also maintain that Dahlin “does not disclose drying the
thermoplastic material in a cassette prior to loading the cassette to the
modeling machine” (principal Br. 7, third para.). However, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013