Ex parte DOUCHE et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1996-2972                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 07/928,784                                                  



               3.   The process of Claim 1, including a mold closing                  
          device for each of said first and second molds for applying an              
          intermediate pressure, lower than a pressure applied by said                
          press in said pressing station, to the respective mold,                     
          including the step of applying said intermediate pressure                   
          during said moving step.                                                    
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Strauss                       2,864,124                Dec. 16,             
          1958                                                                        
          Huckvale                      2 039 463,          Aug. 13, 1980             
          (United Kingdom)                                                            

          Admitted prior art, (Appellants' specification, pages 1 and 2)              
               Claims 1, 3-6, 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
          112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failure to                    
          particularly point out and distinctly claim that which                      
          applicants regard as invention.  Claims 1, 3-6, and 13-17                   
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable                  
          over Huckvale in view of the admitted prior art at pages 1 and              
          2 of appellants' specification and Strauss.                                 
                                       OPINION                                        
               We refer to the appellants' briefs and to the answer for               
          the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and the                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007