Appeal No. 95-4878
Application No. 08/225,087
(Published PCT/DE88/00304)
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Inaba taken together with Bluml (Answer,
page 3, referring to the final rejection dated Dec. 1, 1994,
Paper No. 34, page 2). We affirm this rejection for reasons
which follow.
OPINION
Appellants present two arguments against the examiner’s
rejection. Appellants argue that Bluml is not prior art under
§ 103 via § 102(e)(Brief, pages 3-5). Furthermore, appellants
argue that, even if Bluml is prior art via § 102(e), the
combination of Inaba and Bluml “does not disclose or suggest
the two-platen, mold-clamping apparatus of the present
invention” (Brief, sentence bridging pages 5-6). Since the
rejection of claims 1 through 3 under § 103 is not viable
unless Bluml is available prior art under § 103 via § 102(e),
we will first discuss the issue of the availability of Bluml
as prior art and then discuss the merits of the rejection
under § 103.
A. The Availability of Bluml as Prior Art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007