Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
the force applying and injecting steps of appellant’s method
so that the melt is redistributed as it is being injected,
thereby resulting in simultaneously compressing and injecting
the resin, as now claimed.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims
1-20 as being based on a nonenabling disclosure.
For completeness sake, we make the following observations
regarding the examiner’s and appellant’s argued positions
regarding enablement. It appears from the record that
appellant is of the opinion that the Maus reference applied by
the examiner against the claims differs from appellant’s
invention because in Maus the oversized mold cavity is only
partly filled with melt before injection is completed, whereas
in appellant’s invention the oversized mold cavity is
completely filled with melt before injection is completed.
According to appellant, “[b]ecause of this difference, the
present invention can achieve simultaneous injection and
compression, while Maus does not” (brief, page 13). In
calling into question the enablement of appellant’s claims,
the examiner has repeatedly questioned this above-stated
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007