Appeal 2007-2837
Application 10/924,498
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Liu (Answer 4).
Appellants contend that Liu is directed to a method for producing a
cast article using a porous powder article as a sacrificial pattern, modeled on
a rapid prototyping machine, where the molten metal melts the sacrificial
pattern and takes the shape of the pattern in the casting sand (Br. 6).
Appellants contend that no cavity exists in either the mold or pattern
of Liu, that the mold of the invention replaces the sand used by Liu, and the
“mold” of the invention and the “pattern” of Liu are not interchangeable but
quite different (Br. 7-8). Appellants further contend that there is
“confusion” by the Examiner between a sacrificial pattern having the shape
of a desired final cast part and a mold having a cavity formed therein, the
cavity having a shape of a desired final cast part (Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that Liu discloses a mold inherently having a
mold cavity, where the pattern is a mold that serves the purpose of a forming
shape when molten metal is poured into it at a later stage (Answer 5-6).
Accordingly, the issue presented from the record in this appeal is
whether Liu discloses or describes a process where molten metal is supplied
to the cavity of a mold?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of Liu, which prima facie case has not been adequately
rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we AFFIRM the sole ground
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013