Appellant loses on obviousness in Ex parte HASHIMOTO
The Examiner finds that the combination of Kanefuji and Kroyer
discloses many of the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose securing a
core to an upper mold. Ans. 5-7. The Examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to implement controlled closing
motion of the upper mold similar to Kroyer in the method of
Kanefuji because doing so would avoid problems associated
with closing the molds too slowly or too quickly and provide
smooth displacement of the molten metal to yield an efficient
casting part (Kroyer).
Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that claim 1 “would have been obvious to an
artisan since a particular known technique (utilizing cores) was recognized
as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the casting art and would
only have yielded predictable result of obtaining target product
Appellant unsuccessfully argued non-analogous art. PTAB noted
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
An issue of attorney argument arose: Attorney argument unsupported by
evidence of record cannot overcome the Examiner’s factual findings.
See Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A.
, 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing
Knorr v. Pearson,617 F.2d 1368, 1373 (CCPA 1982) (counsel
argument cannot take the place
of evidence lacking in the record)).
And, reference to KSR:
We find the Examiner’s motivation statement articulates
sufficient reasoning having a rational underpinning to support the
obviousness conclusion. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).