Ex Parte Gervasi et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 28, 201211359084 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte VITO R. GERVASI, ADAM J. SCHNEIDER, JOSH ROCHOLL, and DOUG C. STAHL ____________ Appeal 2011-007710 Application 11/359,084 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-41, 43-52, and 54-57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appellants claim a method of casting comprising positioning a mold 10 having an interior volume 20 in a chamber 12, positioning a material 18 Appeal 2011-007710 Application 11/359,084 2 (e.g., metal) in the chamber and in communication with the interior volume via a conduit 16, applying pressure within the chamber to move the material into the interior volume through the conduit, and "maintaining substantially compressive pressure on the mold while the material moves into the interior [volume] of the mold" (independent claim 54). The method may also include use of a mold having "a non-porous coating with respect to inert gases and vacuum applied to the exterior surface [of the mold]" (independent claims 1 and 34). Representative claims 1 and 54 read as follows: 1. A method of casting comprising: positioning a mold in a chamber, the mold having an exterior surface and an interior volume, a non-porous coating with respect to inert gases and vacuum applied to the exterior surface, and the interior volume being under vacuum; positioning a material including at least one of metal and metal matrix composite in the same chamber with the mold; coupling the interior volume of the mold to the material via a conduit; applying pressure within the chamber to generate a pressure gradient between the interior volume and the chamber; and moving material upwards through the conduit into the interior volume of the mold according to the pressure gradient while compressive pressure is applied to the mold and the material within the chamber. 54. A method of casting comprising: positioning a mold in a chamber, the mold including an exterior surface and an interior volume, the interior volume being evacuated; Appeal 2011-007710 Application 11/359,084 3 positioning a material including at least one of metal and metal matrix composite in the same chamber, the material in communication with an interior of the mold via a conduit; applying pressure within the chamber to move the material into the interior of the mold through the conduit; and maintaining substantially compressive pressure on the mold while the material moves into the interior of the mold. The Examiner rejects independent claim 54 (and dependent claim 57) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Charbonnier (US 4,889,177, issued Dec. 26, 1989). The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 34 (as well as remaining dependent claims 3-9, 11-13, 15-33, 35-41, 43-51, 55, and 56) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Charbonnier in view of Soderstrom (US 6,640,877 B2, issued Nov. 4, 2003) alone or further in view of other prior art of record. It is Appellants' position that the § 102 rejection is improper because Charbonnier allegedly does not teach the claim 54 limitation "maintaining substantially compressive pressure on the mold while the material moves into the interior of the mold" (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2-3). As support for this position, Appellants refer to Figure 1 of Charbonnier and present the following argument: For there to be compressive pressure applied to the mould 6, the pressure on the outside of the mould 6 (Curve A) must be greater than or at least equal to the pressure inside the mould 6 (Curve B). In Charbonnier's case, the pressure on the inside of the mould 6 is greater than the pressure on the outside of the mould 6 at all times starting at phase II of the filling process when the pressure on the bath is increased to generate Appeal 2011-007710 Application 11/359,084 4 ΔP to start the flow of metal from the bath into the mould 6. Charbonnier's apparatus is specifically configured to operate to maintain a higher pressure inside the mould 6 than outside the mould 6 in order to fill the preforming tool 17 with the metal. (Reply Br. 3). This argument is unpersuasive because it is based on a misinterpretation of Charbonnier's disclosure including Figure 1. Contrary to Appellants' above quoted argument, the pressure on the outside of Charbonnier's mold (i.e., above the metal bath) is represented by Curve B (not Curve A as argued) while the pressure inside the mold is represented by Curve A (not Curve B as argued) (Charbonnier col. 4, ll. 20-27). Also contrary to Appellants' argument, Charbonnier teaches that the pressure inside the mold is less (not greater as argued) than the pressure outside the mold (i.e., above the metal bath) so as to create a pressure differential and thereby suck the metal into the mold (id.; see also col. 3, ll. 51-65 and Fig. 1). Because Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner's anticipation finding, we sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 54 and 571. Concerning the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 34, the Examiner acknowledges that the mold of Charbonnier is not provided with a non-porous coating as required by these claims (Ans. 7) but concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Charbonnier's mold with such a non- porous coating in view of and for the reasons taught by Soderstrom (id. at 8). 1 Dependent claim 57 has not been separately argued by Appellants. Appeal 2011-007710 Application 11/359,084 5 Appellants present the following argument in opposition to the Examiner's obviousness conclusion: Applicant respectfully disagrees and contends that Charbonnier and Soderstrom cannot be combined. If a non- porous coating of Soderstrom was applied to the porous mold of Charbonnier, the process described in Charbonnier would no longer operate as described or intended. If the mould 6 of Charbonnier was non-porous, there would be no way to apply the low pressure or vacuum to the interior of the mould 6 in order to create the pressure differential required for countergravity casting. As noted in Charbonnier, the mould 6 is positioned within a chamber 7 which is sealed from the enclosure 1. Therefore, the vacuum applied by pipe 8 to the chamber 7 could not penetrate the non-porous mould 6 to create a low pressure or vacuum condition inside the mould 6 such that a pressure differential could be generated. In this instance, the Charbonnier process would not work without a pressure differential, and thus, the molten metal could not rise from the bath through the tube 4 and into the cavity 5. Furthermore, the inventors in Charbonnier "are more particularly interested in manufacturing composite articles reinforced by long fibres in a traditional sand mould, by applying the gas infiltration principle." The inventors found a particular solution to several problems discussed at column 1, line 43-column 2, line 11. By modifying the Charbonnier mould to be non-porous as in Soderstrom would eliminate the inventors objects of using a sand mould with the application of the gas infiltration principle. (App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 4). Appellants' argument is well taken. Providing Charbonnier's gas permeable sand mold with a non-porous coating as proposed by the Examiner would render the mold incapable of operating in the manner taught by Charbonnier. Significantly, the Examiner has not specifically responded to this argument (see, e.g., Ans. 19). Appeal 2011-007710 Application 11/359,084 6 It follows that we cannot sustain the § 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 34 and claims 3-9, 11-13, 15-33, 35-41, and 43-51 which depend from these independent claims. We also cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 55 and 56, which depend from independent claim 54, as unpatentable over Charbonnier in view of Soderstrom because the Examiner does not explain in this appeal record why these specific dependent claims are considered to be unpatentable (see, e.g., Ans. 5-11). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ssl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation