Appeal No. 95-4853 Page 8
Application No. 08/019,335
even if combinable, would have resulted in a method which, at
best, somehow included the use of a vacuum assist in the press-
type die of Masui wherein the cover portion and base portion
are formed together in the same molding apparatus, not a
process involving sequential use of a vacuum forming die for
the cover formation and then a press-type molding device in
which the previously formed cover portion is set and the base
portion is formed from molten resin as claimed herein. Thus,
in addition to other specifically claimed features argued by
counsel with respect to the separate groupings of claims
presented (brief, pages 5-13), we do not find that the combined
steps as outlined above, which are common to all of the claims
on appeal, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art from the applied reference teachings.
On the record of this appeal, the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter defined by the appealed
claims. Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis
with these facts being interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007