Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
28-44). This interpretation is consistent with the statement
in Maus, at column 31, lines 64-66, that “[i]mmediately after
injection and while the cavities’ molten plastic is very hot
and mobile, the first stage of clamp-actuated profiled
compression starts” (emphasis added).
It is well established that anticipation cannot be
predicated on an ambiguous reference. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d
893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962). In the present
instance, Maus is ambiguous as to the timing of the resin
compression and injection steps required to satisfy step (c)
of claim 1. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing §
102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 based on Maus.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Considering next the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8
and 9 as being unpatentable over Maus, each of these claims
through their dependency on claim 1, calls for the step of
applying force to reduce a volume of the mold cavity and
compress the resin simultaneously with injection. As noted in
our discussion above of the standing § 102 rejection, Maus is
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007