Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
position. In particular, the examiner maintains that (1)
appellant’s arguments and declarations are not commensurate in
scope with the appealed claims because the claims do not
require that the oversized mold cavity be completely filled
with melt before injection is completed, and (2) it is not
clear that appellant’s argued position can be supported by the
original disclosure.
It is questionable whether appellant’s opinion regarding
alleged differences in operation of the present invention vis-
à-vis Maus has any relevance to the § 112, first paragraph,
question of enablement of the invention as presently claimed.
As is made clear by our discussion above, it is our position
that (1) the simultaneous compressing (or pressurizing) and
injecting language of claims 1-9, 15 and 18-20 encompasses the
act of applying a compressive force to the melt as it is being
injected to redistribute the melt in the mold cavity, and (2)
the original disclosure provides an enabling disclosure for
this type of simultaneous compressing and injection. This
being the case, it is immaterial whether the present
disclosure also provides support for appellant’s argument that
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007