Court Opinion

ID: 9453415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:12:31.513817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:38.795216
License: Public Domain

ALMOND, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part, with whom KIRKPATRICK, J., joins.
I agree with the affirmance of claim 8. However, I am unable to join the majority in its reversal of the board’s decision on claim 9.
Both Casselman and Austin teach slip casting in a mold having a single porous face through which water migrates, and other impervious mold faces which may represent one-half, more or less, of the total mold surface. Austin casts by unidirectional solidification proceeding toward the impermeable surface. Cassel-man’s invention is stated to be the replacement of prior art permeable surfaces with impermeable ones. Lawrence *1023teaches formation of a permeable mold and a method of rendering a portion of the mold surface impermeable.
I see nothing unobvious in forming the impervious mold faces of Casselman and Austin by the method taught by Lawrence.
The only recitation of the claim not made obvious by this combination of references is “ * * * keeping said cavity filled with a slip until the cavity is filled with a relatively solidified cast mass of particle * *" The examiner commented in regard to this recitation: “Keeping a mold cavity filled with slip during a molding process is a notorious common expedient as shown by Wadman1 * * The Wadman drawing shows an annular mold for slip casting having a reservoir of slip which feeds the mold as shrinkage due to water loss occurs in the mold. I agree with the examiner that this obvious expedient is without patentable significance in the claim.
I would therefore affirm the decision of the board as to claim 9.

. Wadman 2,288,661 — July 7, 1942. This patent was listed as a reference in the board’s decision, but not mentioned in its discussion as being specifically relied upon.