Appeal No. 95-4878
Application No. 08/225,087
applicant for patent”, i.e., before appellants’ effective
filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of July 8, 1988.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Bluml is
available as prior art under § 103 via § 102(e).
B. The Rejection under § 103
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 through 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Inaba taken with Bluml
essentially for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
final rejection (Paper No. 34) and the Answer. We add the
following comments primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Bluml “discloses what in essence is
a three-platen apparatus.” (Brief, page 5). Appellants’
argument is not persuasive since, as noted by the examiner on
page 4 of the Answer, Bluml discloses and teaches only two
mold plates or platens. Appellants provide no support for
their argument that the structure in Figure 1 of Bluml (which
is not numbered) between the mold clamping plate 2 and the
belt 4 acts as a platen.
Appellants note that Inaba is directed to a three-platen
mold-clamping apparatus (Brief, page 5) but have not contested
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007