Appeal No. 1996-2637
Application No. 08/190,566
Id. The examiner, however, does not explain why and how this
disclosure satisfies the claimed distance L which is defined
as a portion of a flange on a female mold portion, which
overhangs sidewalls of a male mold portion. See Figure 3A of
the instant application in conjunction with claim 4.
Moreover, the examiner does not point to any teaching in
Robin, which recognizes the importance of the relationship
between the claimed t , t and L as defined by the claimed1 0
equation (t - t + 10) mm > L > (t - t ) mm. See the Answer1 0 1 0
in its entirety. Nor does the examiner point to any teaching
in Robin which describes the claimed distance L for a given
mating gap width of 0.02 to 0.1 mm (the claimed width). See
the Answer in its entirety. On this record, the examiner
simply fails to demonstrate that Robin describes each and
every claim limitation within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
102(b). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“the examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability”).
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007