Appeal No. 96-2640
Application No. 08/068,273
(supplemental answer, page 1). Appellant, on the other hand,5
contends that the claim language is correct, and that "said
mating fit" in claim 3 is the same mating fit recited in claim
1.
Considering the embodiment shown in appellant’s Figs. 11
to 16, which includes an upper hollow cylinder 13 with an
upper core 12 mounted therein, the upper core is in a mating
fit with the lower hollow cylinder 33. However, the lower
hollow cylinder 33 is not in a mating fit with the upper
cylinder 13, which merely rests on top of the lower cylinder,
as shown in Fig. 14. Thus, claim 3 appears to be accurate as
written, in that the lower cylinder is aligned with the upper
cylinder due to the mating fit of the upper core and the lower
cylinder. This is borne out by page 7, lines 1 to 6 of the
specification, where appellant discloses (emphasis added) that
"the cylinder of the lower molding die is aligned with the
upper core by a mating fit . . . the cylinder of the lower
5In effect, the examiner’s rejection is on the ground
that claim 3 is not supported by the disclosure, and might
well have been based on § 112, first paragraph (written
description).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007