Appeal No. 1999-1408 Page 4
Application No. 08/809/629
fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, including not only the specific teachings, but
also the inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been
expected to draw therefrom (see In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510
(CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
We first shall consider independent method claim 31, which stands rejected as
being unpatentable over Hofmann in view of Leweringhaus. It is the examiner’s view that
all of the subject matter recited in this claim is disclosed or taught by Hofmann except for
pressing the molding plug into the molten glass according to a predetermined temporal
dependence on force and feed. This, according to the examiner, is taught by
Leweringhaus, and it is the examiner’s view that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to add the servo-drive of Leweringhaus to the Hofmann apparatus
“to make it more adaptable to various materials and desired final products” (Paper No. 7,
page 3).
As we understand the appellant’s arguments, three theories are presented in
rebuttal to the examiner’s position. The first is that Hofmann does not disclose a “press-
molding” method or apparatus. We agree with the appellant that Hofmann moves the
molten glass into pressure contact with the stationary molding plug, whereas in the
appellant’s disclosure the molding plug is moved into pressure contact with the stationary
molten glass. However, no explicit definition of “press-molding” has been set forth in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007