Ex Parte Gervasi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2012

11359084 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012)

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