Appeal No. 96-2640
Application No. 08/068,273
Rejection(2)
In this rejection, the examiner takes particular note of
the fact that, in describing the operation of a conventional
(prior art) compression molding machine, the appellant states
on page 2, lines 11 to 15, that (emphasis added):6
Then, an upper platen (omitted from
illustration) is moved downwards closing the die
cavity and clamping upper and lower molding dies
6 and 7 together. The preform 5 is then heated
and compressed so that the molding 8 is obtained
as shown in Fig. 2.
From the term "then," the examiner infers the suggestion "that
clamping and compressing are occurring independently of one
another using clamping and compressing means" (answer, page
6).
We do not agree with the examiner. Regardless of whether
the dies 6 and 7 of appellant’s disclosed prior art device are
designated upper and lower, or vice versa, the above-quoted
statement from page 2 of the specification must be read in
context. The thrust of appellant’s disclosure is that the
6Although the examiner entered the substitute
specification, the rejection cites pages and lines of the
original specification. We have transposed these citations to
the corresponding pages and lines of the substitute
specification.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007