Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
compression steps of the mold process. Specifically, Maus
states:
The onset of movable platen compressive clamping
force stroke can be alternatively controlled by
time; by the position of the reciprocating-injecting
screw of unit 101; or by a pressure sensor mounted
in the mold, for example. Of these, clamping
triggering control on the basis of time is probably
the least precise. Control based on time is also of
an “open loop” nature. Cavity pressure triggering
of clamping compression also requires that the
injected melt volume exceed the enlarged cavity
volume. This results in a pressurization of the
molten polymer up to the preset cavity pressure
level. This last phase of cavity fill against
increasing pressures, however, produces undesirable
molded-in stresses in the molded optical plastic
part. [column 27, line 56 through column 28, line 2]
With respect to controlling movement of the movable
platen by time, Maus is silent as to whether or not
compressive clamping force is applied simultaneously with
injection. Accordingly, this control scheme does not provide
a basis for an anticipation rejection of claim 1. As to
controlling movement of the movable platen according to cavity
pressure, while the resin would certainly undergo
pressurization or compression simultaneously with injection
according to this control scheme, such pressurization or
compression is not achieved “by applying force to said mold
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007