Appeal No. 96-4162
Application 08/313,901
surface of the molded article. Even if Luther ‘891 were combined with either Wilkinson or
Baugh in the manner proposed by the examiner to form a container having a frusto-conical
seal area, we find no teaching in the references which would support the examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify either the interior recess (33) of end
plate (22) or the supporting surface (133) of plate member (132) of the mold, as opposed
to side molding surfaces (170), to enclose or correspond to the frusto-conical sealing area
of the molded article, as required by independent claims 1 and 3. In other words, the
examiner has resorted to speculation, unfounded assumptions and/or hindsight
reconstruction to supply this deficiency.
Regarding Luther ‘898, it is initially noted that the invention disclosed therein is
particularly directed to the formation of plastic washing machine tubs or similar articles
having recessed holes therein. Thus, it is not apparent why one of ordinary skill in the
molding art would look to such an apparatus as a starting point for molding the types of
containers disclosed by Wilkinson or Baugh which do not comprise such recesses or
holes. Moreover, even if Luther ‘898 were combined with either Wilkinson or Baugh as
proposed by the examiner, we find no teaching or suggestion in any of these references to
support the examiner’s contention that the inclusion of an end member having a recess
therein enclosing or corresponding to the frusto-conical sealing area as required by
independent claims 1 and 3 would have been obvious. For the above reasons, it is
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007