Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
the mold member 5b. When the platens 82, 90 are moved towards
each other, relatively movable frame 74 engages portion 70 of
the first mold member to define, with the mold members, a mold
cavity. Unlike that which is called for in claim 18, however,
the relatively movable frame 74 of Maus does not appear at any
time to surround both of the mold member 5b and the mold
member 5a, 70.
In support of the standing § 103 rejections based on
Maus, the examiner states on page 11 of the answer that
appellant’s instantly claimed injection molding
apparatus was generally well known and conventional
in the art at the time of appellant’s invention, and
was mostly illustrated by Maus et al . . . except
for specifically referring to the mold members being
surrounded by a relatively movable frame . . . .
But this type of mold orientation was generally well
known and conventional in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention. [emphasis added]
Based on these allegedly well known and conventional
constructions in the prior art, the examiner implies that the
subject matter of claim 18 would have been obvious.
We cannot support this implied position. As with the
other § 103 rejections based on Maus, the examiner has again
failed to supply the requisite factual basis to support a
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
22
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007