Appeal No. 1996-2218
Application No. 08/154,422
appellants that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of
the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima
facie case of unpatentability.” See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
examiner relies upon a combination of five references to
reject the claimed subject matter. It is the position of the
examiner that the primary reference to Bohm fails to teach
that the frame is molded between the seal member, the lid
cover and the reinforcing member. However, the secondary
references teach injecting between two preforms. Hence it
would have been obvious to position the
sealing member spaced from the lid cover and form the frame in
situ. See Answer, pages 3 and 4. We disagree with the
examiner’s analysis and position.
Bohm discloses a rigid lid for an automobile roof
wherein a one piece rigid plastic frame 8 is molded around a
lid plate 9 and reinforcing frame 10. During the molding
operation, the fixing elements for the edge gap sealing member
are integrally formed. See Bohm, column 2, lines 33-64,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007