Appeal No. 95-4878
Application No. 08/225,087
the examiner’s statement that Inaba discloses mold closing and
clamping with ball nuts and ball screws can take place either
by rotating the ball nuts or by rotating the ball screws
(final rejection, page 3). Accordingly, we determine that the
examiner has established that it would have been prima facie
obvious to modify the apparatus of Bluml in view of the
teachings of equivalency in Inaba (Id.).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth by the
examiner in the final rejection and the Answer, the rejection
of claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Inaba taken with Bluml is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007