Ex Parte Przeslawski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

11787431 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/787,431 04/16/2007 Brian D. Przeslawski MP418 3140
7590 02/26/2013
Edward J. Timmer
Suite 205
121 East Front Street
Traverse City, MI 49684
EXAMINER
LIN, KUANG Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN D. PRZESLAWSKI
and RAJEEV V. NAIK
____________

Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
The named inventors (hereinafter “the Appellants”)1 seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of various rejections entered against claims 1-10,
13, 15, 16, 18-23, 34-36, 39, 40, 43-45, 47-52, 57, 58, 63-69. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Howmet Corporation.”
Appeal Brief filed March 14, 2011 (“App. Br.”) at 2.
Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter of Appellants’ claims relates to casting of molten
metal or alloy. Specification (“Spec.”) 1. Representative claim 69 is
reproduced below:
69. Mold assembly for casting molten metal or alloy
melt, comprising a melt-containing mold cup, a melt supply
passage in melt flow communication to the mold cup, and a
plurality of molds that are connected in melt flow
communication to the melt supply passage in series
arrangement one after another wherein adjacent molds of the
series are connected in melt flow communication by a
respective melt supply passage extending from a top region of a
preceding mold to a bottom region of a next succeeding mold to
provide top-to-bottom molten metal flow relation between
adjacent molds, and wherein the respective melt supply passage
is configured a manner that each of the molds of the series is at
least partially filled before the next mold in the series is at least
partially filled.
App. Br. 42 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
I. Claims 682 and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Alleweireldt;3
II. Claims 1-8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 34, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 50,
and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoult4
and Anderson;5

2 At page 4 of the Final Office Action entered May 14, 2010, the Examiner
indicated that claim 68 was allowable. At page 7 of the Examiner’s Answer
entered May 9, 2011 (“Ans.”), the claim was newly rejected. In response to
the new ground of rejection, the Appellants requested that the appeal be
maintained. Reply Brief filed July 8, 2011 at 1.
3 U.S. Patent 5,899,257 issued May 4, 1999.
4 U.S. Patent 4,072,180 issued February 7, 1978.
Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
3
III. Claims 1, 9, 10, 34-36, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hagemeyer6 and Anderson; and
IV. Claims 19-21, 48, 49, 52, 57, 58, and 63-67 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoult, Anderson, and
Alleweireldt.
Ans. 3-12.

DISCUSSION
I.
We start with Rejection I.
The Examiner found that Alleweireldt describes every limitation of
claims 68 and 69. Ans. 3-4, 7. According to the Examiner, “the melt supply
passage [disclosed in Alleweireldt] provides top-to-bottom molten metal
flow relation between adjacent molds[,]” as required in claims 68 and 69.
Id. at 3, 7.
The Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding regarding the molten
metal supply flow relation of adjacent molds. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 8.
Thus, the dispositive issue is:
Did the Appellants show reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that Alleweireldt describes the limitation “the molten metal or alloy being
supplied to the bottom of each mold in the series by a melt supply passage
extending from the top of the preceding mold in the series,” as recited in
claim 68, or “adjacent molds of the series are connected in melt flow
communication by a respective melt supply passage extending from a top
region of a preceding mold to a bottom region of a next succeeding mold to

5 U.S. Patent 4,981,167 issued January 1, 1991.
6 U.S. Patent 2,247,777 issued July 1, 1941.
Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
4
provide top-to-bottom molten flow relation between adjacent molds,” as
recited in claim 69?
We agree with the Appellants on this issue. While claims under
examination are given their broadest reasonable construction, “such
construction [must] be ‘consistent with the specification, . . . and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The current Specification informs one skilled in the relevant art as
follows:
The present invention provides method and mold
assembly for casting molten metal or alloy (melt) that involve
providing a metal or alloy melt in a melt-receiving mold cup of
a mold assembly and supplying the melt from the mold cup to a
melt supply passage of the mold assembly for flow to a
plurality of molds that are connected in melt flow
communication to the melt supply passage in series
arrangement one after another. The melt supply passage is
configured in a manner that each of the molds of the series is at
least partially filled before the next mold in the series is at least
partially filled.
Spec. 3 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Figure 6 of the subject application, reproduced below,
shows:
App
App
Spec
non-
(not
artic
10d
the t
discl
claim
meta
desc
teach
eal 2011-0
lication 11
ifically, F
article form
shown) vi
le-forming
in top-to-b
op of each
One skil
osures tha
s 68 and
l or alloy
ription in t
Having c
ings of A

12159
/787,431
igure 6 dep
ing mold
a gating sp
molds #1
ottom man
mold to th
led in the r
t the direc
69 is relati
“supply.”
he Specifi
onstrued t
lleweireldt
icts a mol
#0 suppli
oke 10s in
– #3 conn
ner to pro
e bottom
elevant ar
tion of “m
ve to the m
The Exam
cation that
he key dis
. Figure 1
5
d assembl
ed with me
a dead-en
ected by s
vide flow
of the next
t would ha
elt flow co
old cup a
iner has n
compels a
puted clai
of Allewe
y having a
lt entering
d flow ma
equential m
of molten
mold. Sp
ve unders
mmunicat
s the point
ot directed
different
m limitatio
ireldt is re

first faux
from a m
nner and s
elt suppl
metal or a
ec. 18-19
tood from
ion” recite
of origin
us to any
constructi
ns, we co
produced
or false
old cup
ubsequen
y member
lloy from
.
these
d in
for the

on.
nsider the
below:
t
s
App
App
Allew
acco
from
pass
69, t
2 thr
relat
antic
of cl
eal 2011-0
lication 11

eireldt’s
rding to th
sprue cup
age 3. Col
he molten
ough pass
ionship.
Therefor
ipates clai

We next
aims unde
12159
/787,431
Figure 1 a
e lost wax
6 into thr
. 2, ll. 12-
metal is su
age 3 in a
e, we cann
ms 68 and
consider R
r separate
bove depic
molding p
ee blades 2
36. In con
pplied fro
bottom-to-
ot agree w
69.
ejection I
headings.
6
ts an appa
rocess, w
superpos
trast to the
m the spru
top melt f
ith the Ex
II.
I. The Ap
App. Br.
ratus for c
herein mo
ed end-to-
subject m
e cup 6 in
low comm
aminer th
pellants ar
17-25. To

asting turb
lten metal
end in stri
atter of cl
to each of
unication
at Allewei
gue vario
the extent
ine blade
is poured
ngs 1 via
aim 68 or
the blades
reldt
us groups
the
s

Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
7
arguments under these separate headings comply with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(viii), we consider them separately below. Otherwise, all
claims stand or fall with claim 1, which we reproduce below:
1. Method for casting molten metal or alloy, comprising
providing a metal or alloy melt in a melt-containing mold cup
of a mold assembly and supplying the melt from the mold cup
to a melt supply passage of the mold assembly for flow to a
plurality of spaced apart ceramic shell molds that are connected
in melt flow communication to the melt supply passage in
series arrangement disposed laterally one after another, wherein
the melt supply passage forms an unobstructed melt flow path
directly to respective mold ingates in a manner that each of the
molds of the series is at least partially filled before the next
mold in the series is at least partially filled.
Id. at 34.
Claim 1:
The Examiner found that “Hoult substantially shows the invention as
claimed except that [Hoult’s] molds are conventional sand molds rather than
ceramic casting molds[,]” as required by claim 1. Ans. 4. Relying on
Anderson, however, the Examiner concluded that the “use [of] ceramic
casting molds in lieu of sand molds for casting a plurality of cast articles in
the process of Hoult [would have been] deemed [by one of ordinary skill in
the art] to be nothing more than an obvious matter of design choice[.]” Id.
The Appellants contend that weirs 5 and wells 6 in Hoult constitute
obstructions in the flow path and therefore Hoult does not describe “an
unobstructed melt flow path,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 17-18. The
Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined Hoult and Anderson “given the disparate molds types and
mold features.” Id. at 18.
Thus, the dispositive issues arising from these contentions are:
App
App
that
1?
that
And
rever
exam
writt
porti
“uno
enco
App
ascer
Figu
supp
Exam
eal 2011-0
lication 11
Did the A
Hoult desc
Did the A
a person o
erson?
We do n
sible error
As stated
ination th
en descrip
on of the S
bstructed.
mpasses th
. Br. 6. Th
taining th
Figure 4
re 4A abov
ly membe
iner at pa
12159
/787,431
ppellants
ribes “an u
ppellants
f ordinary
ot find the
. In re Ju
above, th
eir broade
tion. In th
pecificati
” The App
e embodi
us, it is ap
e scope of
A of the ap
e shows m
rs 10d hav
ge 8 of the
show rev
nobstruct
show rev
skill in the
Appellant
ng, 637 F.
e PTO is o
st reasonab
is case, th
on that con
ellants ac
ment show
propriate
the term “
plication
olds 20 c
ing passag
Answer,
8
ersible erro
ed melt flo
ersible erro
art would
s’ argume
3d 1356, 1
bligated t
le interpr
e Appellan
tains a sp
knowledge
n in Figur
for us to co
unobstruc
is reprodu
onnected b
es 10e. Sp
the “melt
r in the E
w path,” a
r in the E
have com
nt persuas
365 (Fed.
o give clai
etation con
ts do not d
ecial defin
, however
e 4A of th
nsider Fig
ted.”
ced below
y arc-shap
ec. 18. A
supply pas
xaminer’s
s required
xaminer’s
bined Hou
ive to show
Cir. 2011)
ms during
sistent wi
irect us to
ition for th
, that claim
e subject a
ure 4A in
:
ed sequen
s pointed
sage” that
finding
by claim
conclusio
lt and

.

th the
any
e term
1
pplication

tial melt
out by the
forms the
n
.

App
App
“uno
stepp
mem
in th
melt
restr
the f
claim
Hou
meta
mold
mold
mini
less
37-4
eal 2011-0
lication 11
bstructed
ed passag
bers 10d,
e relevant
flow path
ictions inc
low is not
Under th
limitatio

lt’s Figure
l is poured
cavity 2,
cavity in
mum cros
than the cr
3.
12159
/787,431
melt flow
e portions
especially
art would
” to read o
luding pas
otherwise
e correct c
n. Hoult’s
1 shows a
into inlet
and then o
series. Co
s-sectional
oss-sectio
path,” as th
that restri
mold #1.
reasonably
n flow pat
sage segm
obstructed
laim cons
Figure 1 i
mold for
7 such tha
ver weir 5
l. 4, ll. 29
area of th
nal area of
9
ose terms
ct flow int
Therefore
construe
hs that ma
ents with
(i.e., bloc
truction, H
s reproduc
casting mo
t molten m
through r
-52. Houl
e runner-f
the ingate
are used i
o the arc-s
, we concl
the limitat
y include p
smaller op
ked).
oult descr
ed below
lten metal
etal flow
unner feed
t explicitly
eeder (abo
3 to each
n claim 1,
haped sup
ude that on
ion “unob
rotrusion
enings, pr
ibes the d
:
, wherein
s into well
er 4 into t
teaches th
ve the wei
cavity.” C
includes
ply
e skilled
structed
s, steps, or
ovided tha
isputed

the molten
6, into
he next
at “the
r) [is] not
ol. 4, ll.

t

Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
10
While the Appellants are correct that Hoult’s apparatus includes weirs
5 and wells 6, they do not constitute obstructions relative to the openings
defined by ingates 3. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
“the supply passage in . . . Hoult is considered to be an unobstructed melt
flow path directly to respective mold ingates as it does not prevent the
molten metal from moving through the supply passage.” Ans. 9.
We disagree with the Appellants that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not have combined Hoult and Anderson. Indeed, the Appellants
acknowledge that Anderson teaches ceramic molds on a sprue loop. App.
Br. 18. Thus, we find the Examiner’s reason for combining the references to
be supported by the evidence and reasonable. Although Anderson’s system
is not identical to that disclosed in Hoult, that fact alone does not preclude a
person of ordinary skill in the art from considering their collective teachings.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Claim 8:
Claim 8 indirectly depends on claim 1 through intervening claim 3
and recites the further limitation “wherein subsequent molds being filled
with the molten metal or alloy have lower levels of foreign matter than the
molten metal or alloy filling the first mold.” App. Br. 35.
The Examiner reasoned that “if the sequential filling of molten metal
into the mold cavity in the instant process results in lower levels of foreign
matter in the mold subsequent to the first mold so does the process of . . .
Hoult . . . since the process of . . . Hoult . . . also sequentially fills the mold
cavities.” Ans. 9-10.
The Appellants argue that the references “fail to disclose or suggest”
the claim limitation. App. Br. 18. That, however, is not an argument in
Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
11
support of separate patentability pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 51.37(c)(1)(vii). In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites “an arc-shaped passage communicated directly to
respective ingates of respective adjacent molds.” App. Br. 36.
The Examiner found that “the differen[ce] in shape presents no novel
or unexpected results and solves no stated problems and would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the casting art.” Ans. 10.
The Appellants argue that Hoult does not disclose an arc-shaped
passage. App. Br. 18-19.
We agree with the Examiner. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have selected a passage having any shape, including an arc shape, that
would permit flow of the molten metal or alloy into the molds as an obvious
design choice. The Appellants have not directed us to any evidence that the
arc-shaped passage provides any new, let alone, unexpected result.

Claim 22:
Claim 22 recites:
22. Method for casting molten metal or alloy,
comprising supplying a metal or alloy melt to a plurality of
molds which are connected in series arrangement one after
another wherein a respective mold of the series is connected by
a respective first tubular melt supply member having a tubular
loop segment shape communicated upstream to an ingate
proximate a top of a preceding mold in the series and is
connected by a respective second tubular melt supply member
having a tubular loop segment shape communicated
downstream to an ingate proximate a top of the next mold in the
App
App
App
two
Ans.
And
wher
molt
into
conc
melt
casti
And
“[t]h
eal 2011-0
lication 11
series, an
next mo
. Br. 36-37
The Exa
tubular me
11. Spec
erson’s Fig
ein a gene
en metal, w
the mold o
luded that
supply pa
ng process
The App
erson does
ere is no s
12159
/787,431
d comple
ld is filled
.
miner foun
lt supply p
ifically, An
ure 7 show
rally funn
hich flow
f the tools
“it would
ssages in t
.” Ans. 1
ellants rep
not cure t
uggestion
tely filling
.
d that An
assages to
derson’s
s a mold
el shaped c
s down th
. Col. 2, l
have been
he casting
1.
eat the arg
he perceiv
to combin
12
each mol
derson’s F
cast mult
Figure 7 is
tree holdin
up 42 at t
e tree and
. 65 to col
obvious t
system of
uments m
ed deficien
e, or how t
d in the ser
igure 7 tea
iple article
reproduce
g a plural
he top of t
through th
. 4, l. 42. T
o provide
. . . Hoult
ade again
cies of H
o combine
ies before
ches the p
s simultan
d below:
ity of finis
he tree rec
e horizont
he Exam
a plurality
to speed u
st Hoult, a
oult and ar
,” the two
the
rovision o
eously.

hed molds
eives
al gates
iner
of tubular
p the
dding that
guing that

f
,

Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
13
references. App. Br. 19-20. The arguments against Hoult are unpersuasive
for the reasons stated above. Regarding the combination, the Appellants do
not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the use of two tubular passages
would have increased production. Therefore, we conclude that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to modify Hoult to include
plural tubular melt supply passages in order to increase production.
The rejection of claim 22 is affirmed.

Claim 23:
The Appellants offer the same argument made in support of claim 13,
adding that Anderson does not cure the perceived deficiencies of Hoult and
does not disclose sequential filling of the molds. For the same reason given
above, we find the Appellants’ argument against Hoult unpersuasive. As for
sequential filling, that feature is described by Hoult. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 23 is affirmed.

Claims 34, 44, 45, & 47:
The Appellants repeat the same arguments offered in support of
claims 1 and 23. App. Br 21-22. We find these arguments unpersuasive for
the reasons stated above.

Claims 39 & 50:
The Appellants repeat the same arguments offered in support of
claims 22 and 23. App. Br. 23-24. We find these arguments unpersuasive
for the reasons stated above.

Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
14
Claims 40 & 51:
The Appellants repeat the same arguments offered in support of
claims 13 and 23, adding that the runner-feeder 4 in Hoult resides within the
rectangular bodies of the sand mold. App. Br. 24-25. We find the
arguments made in support of claims 13 and 23 unpersuasive for the reasons
stated above. Although Hoult discloses a sand mold, we find no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the “use [of] ceramic casting molds in lieu of
sand molds for casting a plurality of cast articles in the process of Hoult is
deemed to be nothing more than an obvious matter of design choice[.]”
Ans. 4.

III.
Claims 1, 9 & 10:
The Examiner found that “Hagemeyer substantially shows the
invention as claimed except that he use[s] sand molds instead of ceramic
molds for casting a plurality of articles.” Ans. 5. The Examiner found,
however, that Anderson teaches “that it is conventional to use investment
casting mold[s] for casting a plurality of cast articles.” Id. The Examiner
concluded from these findings that the “use [of] ceramic casting molds in
lieu of sand molds for casting a plurality of cast articles in the process of
Hagemeyer is deemed to be nothing more than an obvious matter of design
choice, depending on the type of cast article to be obtained.” Id. at 5-6.
The Appellants argue that Hagemeyer
teaches away from claim 1 in disclosing a drag 10 and cope 12
that are mated and tilted at an angle to provide uphill flow of
molten metal in runner cavity 16 wherein the molten metal
encounters a very small, flow-restricting orifice 28 and shrink
bob cavity 26 before it enters a respective mold cavity.
Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
15

App. Br. 26. The Appellants further argue that Anderson does not cure the
perceived deficiency of Hagemeyer and does not disclose sequential filling
of the molds. Id. at 26-27. According to the Appellants, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the references “given the
disparate mold types and features involved.” Id. at 27.
Thus, the dispositive issue is:
Did the Appellants demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
references in the manner claimed?
We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. Hagemeyer’s
Figures 1, 2, and 8 are reproduced below:
App
App
Hage
casti
meta
appa
elem
flow
into
surro
eal 2011-0
lication 11

meyer’s F
ngs shown
l has solid
ratus taken
ent 18 is t
of metal i
the mold i
unding th
12159
/787,431
igure 1 ab
joined to
ified”; Fig
in the dir
he sprue, e
nto the mo
mpression
e respectiv
ove is “a p
a runner a
ure 2 is an
ection of t
lement 28
ld, and ele
; and Figu
e sections
16
lan view o
nd appeari
end eleva
he arrows
is a very s
ment 26 i
re 8 shows
of the cas
f several
ng as they
tional view
2–2 of Fig
mall orifi
s a shrink
the portio
tings along
different ty
would jus
of the m
ure 1, wh
ce that res
bob cavity
ns of the m
the lines

pes of
t after the
old
ere
tricts the
leading
olds
8–8 of

Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
17
Figure 1, where elements 10 and 12 represent the mold halves referred to as
the drag and cope, respectively. P. 1, l. 30 to p. 2, l. 2; p. 2, l. 37 to p. 3, l. 5.
The Appellants are correct that Hagemeyer’s very small orifice 28
restricts the flow of metal into the mold. As we discussed above, however,
the term “unobstructed” recited in claim 1 does not preclude restrictions as
long as molten metal can flow into the mold. As to the Appellants’
arguments that Anderson does not describe sequential filling and that
Anderson’s mold is different from Hagemeyer, our reasoning with respect to
Rejection II as applied against claims 22 and 23 apply similarly here.
Therefore, we uphold the rejection as applied against claims 1, 9, and
10.

Claims 34-36 & 43:
For these claims, the Appellants merely repeat arguments already
found unpersuasive above. App. Br. 27-28. Therefore, we uphold the
rejection of these claims.

IV.
Claims 19-21, 48, & 49:
Claim 19, which we select as representative, recites: “The method of
claim 1 including configuring the molds to cast directionally solidified
articles therein having a plurality of columnar grains along an axis of the
mold.” App. Br. 36.
As previously discussed, no reversible error has been shown in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1 in view of
Hoult and Anderson. The Examiner relied on the teachings of Alleweireldt
to account for the further limitation recited in claim 19.
Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
18
The Appellants argue that the references cannot be combined because
they are “multiple unrelated casting patents.” App. Br. 29.
We do not find the Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner
relied on Alleweireldt’s teaching regarding the provision of a chill to obtain
a unidirectional cast structure, thereby controlling the mechanical properties.
The Appellants do not explain, much less prove, why a chill could not be
used in Hoult to obtain the same or similar advantage disclosed in
Alleweireldt.
Therefore, we uphold the rejection of these claims.

Claims 52, 57, 58, and 63-65:
Claim 52, which we select as representative, is reproduced below:
52. Metal or alloy casting, comprising a plurality of
solidified metal or alloy turbine blades that are connected to the
solidified gating wherein a first one of the metal or alloy turbine
blades connected to the gating includes more foreign matter
than the remaining of the solidified metal or alloy turbine
blades connected to the solidified gating and wherein adjacent
solidified turbine blades are connected top-to-top to one another
by first and second solidified gatings each having a loop
segment shape with respective loop segment ends connected to
tops of respective adjacent turbine blades.
The Examiner relied on Alleweireldt to account for the “turbine
blades” limitation recited in claim 52. Ans. 12.
The Appellants argue that the references cannot be combined because
they are “multiple unrelated casting patents.” App. Br. 30-31.
The Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. Because it was known to
cast turbine blades having a specific structure, as shown in Alleweireldt, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make
Appeal 2011-012159
Application 11/787,431
19
turbine blades having controlled properties using the method described in
Hoult, as modified by Anderson.

Claims 66 & 67:
The Appellants repeat the same or similar arguments already
addressed above. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of these claims for the
same or similar reasons.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 68 and
69 as anticipated by Alleweireldt is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-8, 13,
15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 34, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 50, and 51 as unpatentable over
Hoult and Anderson is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 9, 10,
34-36, and 43 as unpatentable over Hagemeyer and Anderson is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 19-21,
48, 49, 52, 57, 58, and 63-67 as unpatentable over Hoult, Anderson, and
Alleweireldt 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(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

kmm