Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200
The Examiner contends that the argued “requirement” that the solid
product is forced over a core mold through a small opening is not found in
the claims (Answer 4-5).
Accordingly, the dispositive issue presented in the record of this
appeal is as follows: does Alieri teach the use of air to “inflate” the molded
solid product and thus aid in its removal from the mold?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore we
AFFIRM the sole ground of rejection on review in this appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as the reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Cole discloses the method and molding machine essentially as
claimed, with the exception that the solid molded product is
ejected from the mold by a burst of air through an air injection
tube (col. 8, ll. 3-14; col. 9, ll. 54-65; Office action dated Jul. 26,
2005, pages 2-4);2
(2) Alieri discloses an injection molding machine and method of
molding plastic screw caps or closures, where one embodiment of
2 Appellant does not contest or dispute the Examiner’s findings that Cole
discloses or teaches the basic structure of the injection molding machine and
the method of molding as recited in claim 8 on appeal (Br. 4-6; see the
Office action dated Jul. 26, 2005, page 4; see also Cole, Abstract; Fig. 3, and
col. 6, l. 25 et seq.).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013