Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
members to reduce a volume of the mold cavity and compress
said plasticized resin therein,” as called for in step (c) of
claim 1. Accordingly, this control scheme also does not
provide a basis for an anticipation rejection of claim 1.
We are left with Maus’ third scheme for controlling
movement of the movable platen, i.e, by the position of the
injecting screw of the resin melt injecting unit, as a
possible basis for anticipation. With respect to this control
scheme, the examiner points to several portions of the Maus
disclosure, which, according to the examiner, establish that
Maus’ third scheme for controlling movement of the movable
platen results in applying force to reduce a volume of the
mold cavity and compress the resin simultaneously with
injection, as called for in step (c) of appealed claim 1.
These include: column 14, lines 22-29 (“The compression
portion of the molding cycle is initiated off of sensors
(preferably, screw position) even before the screw has
actually completed its travel and before subsequent full
delivery of the pre-determined injection volume . . . shot
size is completed”); column 19, lines 32-34 (“such is exactly
the case in preferred embodiments of the present invention,
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007