Appeal No. 1998-0839
Application No. 08/433,206
evidence of the conventionality of the claimed projection
means. Based on these factual
findings, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to include urging and guiding means when performing
the process set forth in the primary reference.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claims 1 and 7 on appeal. Therefore, the
rejection of these claims is reversed. Our reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner that the applied
prior art shows the steps of forming an annular groove;
receiving the skirt portion in a space formed by molds; and
urging the outer side surface or inner side surface of the
skirt portion one toward the other by a projection formed on
one of the molds. However, we do not find in the applied
prior art the step of guiding by a guide surface, particularly
where the guide surface extends from the projection in an
amount equal to the depth of the annular groove. The examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007