Appeal No. 95-4119
Application 08/155,877
“flat condition.” In another method step, the material is then5
allowed to assume a “semi-deformed” shape.
We understand appellant’s statement in the brief (page
3) as calling upon the examiner to provide evidence rather than
relying upon speculation as to the knowledge of or suggestion in
the art for the claimed load applying period, pressure, and
“sequence of pressing.”
It is clear to us that the applied prior art would not
have been suggestive of the now claimed method with, in
particular, its plural pressing steps, as discussed above.
We appreciate the clear suggestion from the teaching of
Aktiebolaget for using non-dedicated matrices (dies) with
removably secured forming structure (pins) enabling the formation
of differently configured work pieces. However, plural pressing
steps as set forth in appellant’s claim 6 are not suggested.
5We are informed by the specification (page 6) that when
the load is relaxed and the deformed material is pressed to a
flat condition this has the effect of eliminating the high degree
of springback (relax run of Figure 9).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007