Appeal No. 1996-2637
Application No. 08/190,566
We turn next to the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
4 through 11, 13 and 14 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of either Bielfeldt or Dannels and Mafilios. As
found by the examiner at page 7 of the Answer, Mafilios does
teach the importance of providing vents, including peripheral
vents, in the mold used in a molding process, such as one
disclosed by Bielfeldt or Dannels. Thus, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious to
provide peripheral vents large enough to permit the escape of
gases and volatiles, but small enough to prevent excessive
bleeding of resin material, in the mold used in the molding
process of Bielfeldt or Dannels.
However, the combination proposed by the examiner does
not result in the claimed subject matter. We find that the
applied prior art references do not teach, nor would have
suggested, the claimed distance L for the given claimed mating
gap width. Nowhere do the applied prior art references, for
example, recognize the importance of the relationship between
the claimed distances t , t and L as defined by the claimed1 0
equation (t - t + 10) mm > L > (t - t ) mm. Nor do the1 0 1 0
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007