Appeal No. 1999-1408 Page 5
Application No. 08/809/629
specification, and there is no evidence of record to support a conclusion that “press
molding” should be interpreted in any manner other than the literal meaning of the words,
which is that the molten glass and the molding plug are pressed into contact with one
another. Albeit that it is induced in a different manner, the Hofmann system produces the
molded product by pressing the glass against the mold and the mold plug, which is all that
the claim requires. We therefore find this argument not to be persuasive.
The second of the appellant’s arguments is that the Hofmann method does not
press the plug into the glass “according to a predetermined temporal dependency on force
and feed.” This phrase does not appear in the specification or the original claims, having
been added to the claims in the response to the first office action (Paper No. 5). It has not
explicitly been defined in the record. However, since Hofmann discloses a glass molding
apparatus that operates in an assembly line manner, and in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, it is our view that the Hofmann machine inherently must operate in accordance
with this requirement of the claim, that is, at predetermined forces and rates.
The appellant’s third argument is that there is no suggestion for one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the teachings of Hofmann and Leweringhaus in the manner set out by
the examiner. We disagree. In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized from Leweringhaus, especially columns 1 and 2, the advantages of utilizing
microprocessors and the like in the operation of glass forming systems to continuously
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007