Appeal No. 1996-2972 Page 6
Application No. 07/928,784
and 17) is another matter. Here, the examiner has advanced
an additional basis for asserting the lack of definiteness of
the latter claims based on the "a pressure" language appearing
in claim 3 (answer, page 3). Our review of the briefs reveals
that appellants have not contested this latter basis for the
examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Accordingly, on this record, while we do not sustain the
examiner's § 112, second paragraph rejection as it pertains to
claims 1, 6 and 16, we summarily sustain the examiner's
uncontested § 112, second paragraph rejection as it pertains
to claims 3-5, 13-15 and 17.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner essentially acknowledges (answer, pages 3-5)
that Huckvale (G.B. 2 039 463) does not disclose (1) a
duplicate molding process with the application of a glazing to
the molds in auxiliary stations, and (2) moving the molds of
Huckvale independently into and out of the pressing station
as required by all of the claims on appeal. According to the
examiner, however, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the injection molding machine
of Huckvale for duplicate molding rather than for molding shoe
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007