Appeal No. 96-3501
Application No. 08/172,773
“the welding action currently claimed” . A similar teaching 3
is found in Ufer at column 2, lines 60 and 61 and Figure 2
which illustrates a preferred pressure sequence for a prior
art blow molding operation.
Although appellant argues that the claimed method results
in an enhanced attachment strength of the weld between the pad
and parison (brief, page 3), no objective evidence is of
record demonstrating that a weld strength produced by the
claimed method differs at all from the weld strengths produced
by the prior art processes.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejections of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, because we
have relied on portions of the prior art references not
specifically referred to in the answer as factual support for
the obviousness conclusion, we denominate our affirmance as
involving a new rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
3No claim on appeal is limited to “alternatingly” raising
and lowering the pressure to form a type of “pulsing” as
described in the specification at page 7, lines 1-6.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007