Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
a) claims 17 and 18, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph,
b) claims 1-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph,
c) claims 1, 2, 5 and 7, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Maus, and
d) claims 3, 4, 6, and 8-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Maus.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
In rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the examiner considers that claim 17 is
inconsistent with claim 10, from which it depends.
Specifically, the examiner maintains that the injecting step
of claim 17 calling for injecting plasticized resin “to
completely fill said pre-enlarged mold cavity” is inconsistent
with the injecting step of claim 10, which calls for injecting
into each pre-enlarged mold cavity a volume of plasticized
resin “insufficient to fill each pre-enlarged cavity.”
From our perspective, claim 17 does not merely impose a
further qualification on claim 10 by requiring that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007