Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
skill in the art to modify Maus in a manner which would result
in the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the examiner has
not explained, and it is apparent to us, where Maus teaches or
suggests providing Maus with a movable frame that surrounds
both of the mold members, as called for in paragraph (b) of
claim 18. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing §
103 rejection of claim 18-20 based on Maus.
Summary
The rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed.
The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Maus are reversed.
23
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007