Ex Parte Schlienger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2012

11653739 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/653,739 01/16/2007 Max Eric Schlienger SKPL-4 6309
52450 7590 06/21/2012
KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
ONE INDIANA SQUARE
SUITE 2800
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-2079
EXAMINER
LIN, KUANG Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MAX ERIC SCHLIENGER, MICHAEL BALDWIN,
and MICHAEL MAGUIRE
__________

Appeal 2011-001060
Application 11/653,739
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-17, 19-23, 26, and 28-33. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2011-001060
Application 11/653,739

2
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a method of casting
reactive metal in a mold formed by curing a substantially silica-free ceramic
particle and curable polymer mixture (Spec. 9).
Claim 13 is illustrative:
13. A method for forming a cast component comprising:

providing a mixture including ceramic particles and a curable liquid
polymer based binder;

forming a green solid casting mold from the mixture;

sintering the green casting mold to adhere the adjacent ceramic
particles and burn out the polymer binder to create a sintered ceramic casting
mold free of silica;

pouring a reactive molten metal within the sintered ceramic casting
mold; and

solidifying the reactive molten metal to a cast component substantially
free of surface defects associated with a reaction between the sintered
ceramic casting mold and the reactive molten metal.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-17, 19-23, 26, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Frasier (US 2003/0062145 A1, pub. Apr. 3, 2003)
in view of Feagin (referring collectively to US 4,196,769 issued Apr. 8,
1980; US 4,787,439 issued Nov. 29, 1988; and US 5,535,811 issued Jul. 16,
1996 ).
Appellants argue the claims as a group focusing on the subject matter
of independent claims 1, 13 and 26 (App. Br. 7-10). We select claim 13, the
broadest claim on appeal, as representative of the group.
Appeal 2011-001060
Application 11/653,739

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to use the silica-free ceramic particles to make a metal casting mold
as taught by Feagin in Frasier’s method of making a metal casting mold?
We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner finds that Frasier teaches forming a metal casting mold
by using ceramic particles that may include alumina, yttria, magnesia,
silicon nitride, silica and mixtures thereof and a curable polymer (Ans. 3-5).
The Examiner finds that Frasier teaches using a stereolithography apparatus
(SLA) to form the ceramic particle and curable polymer mixture into the
mold form which is then sintered to form the mold. Id. The Examiner finds
that Frasier does not teach the use of a silica-free investment mold for
casting reactive metals (Ans. 4). The Examiner relies on Feagin to teach it
was known to use silica-free ceramics to make reactive metal casting molds
to avoid reaction of the metal with the mold. Id. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to use the silica free refractory mold
material of Feagin in the process of Frasier to form an investment mold for
casting reactive metals such that a reactive metallic article may be formed.
Id.
Appellants argue that combining Feagin’s mold with Frasier would
have rendered Frasier unsuitable for its intended purpose because Frasier
uses a stereolithography process not a wax model process as taught by
Feagin to form the mold (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants contend that there is no
motive to combine Feagin’s mold with Frasier’s process because such a
Appeal 2011-001060
Application 11/653,739

4
combination would not yield adequate green state articles (App. Br. 9).
Appellants argue that Feagin’s binders do not form good bonds to hold the
refractory material together in a green state such that one of ordinary skill
would not have been motivated to combine Frasier with Feagin (App. Br.
10).
We have fully considered the Examiner’s findings and Appellants’
arguments and we find that the preponderance of the evidence favors the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive because they fail to specifically address the Examiner’s stated
rejection. The Examiner is not proposing to substitute Feagin’s mold, slurry
or process of molding into or for Frasier’s process as argued by Appellants.
Rather, the Examiner finds that Feagin teaches the concept of using silica-
free materials to avoid undesirable reactions of the metal with the mold.
Based on this teaching, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use silica-free ceramic particles such as the non-silica materials
(i.e., alumina, magnesia or yttria) disclosed by Frasier in Frasier’s mold
making process to produce a mold that does not undesirably react with the
metal (Ans. 3-5).
Accordingly, using Feagin’s teaching to use silica-free ceramic
particles in Frasier’s process would not have rendered Frasier’s
stereolithography process unsuitable for its intended purpose. Instead, such
a modification would have entailed simply using Frasier’s silica-free
ceramic materials (i.e., alumina, yttria, and magnesia) in the
stereolithography process, which Frasier broadly teaches may be done (Ans.
4-5; Frasier para. [0115]).
Appeal 2011-001060
Application 11/653,739

5
On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

ORDER
AFFIRMED

ssl