Appeal No. 1996-3738
Application No. 08/004,254
"Gates," that the gate is given a smaller cross section than
the runner to allow easy separation from the runner, and the
showing in Fig. 7-16 (page 186) of a gate with a narrow width
(depth).
The final step recited in claim 39 is:
separating the surround from a ring of solidified sprue
formed of the elastomeric material remaining in the annular
feed chamber by tearing the sprue from the surround at the
narrow junction between the sprue and the surround formed by
the annular orifice, the tearing being done while the
elastomeric material is still hot from the injection step.
As the examiner seems to recognize, the only disclosure in the
applied prior art concerning separation of the excess material
from the molded part is in Scott, which discloses that the
excess (flashing) is trimmed (col. 3, line 31) and "removed,
as by a trim die" (col. 4, lines 27 to 29). The examiner
argues at page 7 of the answer to the effect that the term
"tearing" as used in claim 39 does not preclude the use of
cutting tools, but, whatever may be the merit of that
argument, we do not consider that any normal meaning of the 3
3"The general rule is that terms in the claim are to be
given their ordinary and accustomed meaning." K-2 Corp. v.
Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007