Appeal No. 95-1987
Application 08/076,475
which indicates, in an alternative embodiment, that a fixed
quantity of rubber may be placed in a mold cavity and "the
separate molds are neatly jointed so that the rubber material
may be filled up by compression."
With respect to those claims, separately argued,
that call for the use of molds formed of fluorine resins or
silicone resins, we note that Itoh contemplates the use of
fluororesin mold material (column 1, lines 63-67) while Natori
teaches a preference for the use of molds made from, inter
alia, fluoroplastics and silicone resins.
In light of the foregoing discussion, we affirm the
rejection as to appealed claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 31, and 32.
However, since our application of the prior art and rationale
arguably differs from that of the examiner, and, because we
have additionally relied on the McGraw-Hill publication, we
denominate our affirmance of the rejection of these claims as
involving a new rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007