Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Cole US 4,541,795 Sep. 17, 1985
Alieri US 5,786,079 Jul. 28, 1998
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cole in view of Alieri (Answer 3).
Appellant contends that Cole does not teach inflation of the solid
molded product, but teaches use of air pressure to move the closure device
from the mold, and thus does not include any requirement that the solid
product is forced over a core mold through a small opening (Br. 4).
Appellant contends that the use of the word “inflates” by Alieri cannot
mean expansion of the cap per se, as the cap has no capability to hold air
such that it can expand or inflate, and thus Alieri must mean that compressed
air loosens the cap by mere mechanical removal (Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that both Cole and Alieri disclose injection
molding machines that utilize gas to aid in ejection of the solid molded
product (Answer 4).1
The Examiner contends that Alieri does teach that the air inflates the
cap, that the shape of the cap is distorted via expansion, and the claimed
language does not preclude any other means used in removing the cap (id.).
1 We refer to and cite from the Revised Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 5,1
2007.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013