Appeal No. 1996-3738
Application No. 08/004,254
Before considering the rejection of any particular claim
in detail, we note that on page 2 of the reply brief, second
paragraph, appellants argue to the effect that Scott is
nonanalogous art. In the view we take of this case it is
unnecessary to resolve this issue, however, and we will assume
for the purpose of discussion that Scott is analogous art.
We will first turn to the rejection of claim 39, the
basis of which is set forth on pages 3 to 6 of the examiner's
answer. In essence, the examiner finds that it would have
been obvious, in view of the Handbook, to use a ring gate in
the molding process of Tsuchiya, and, in view of Scott, to use
a cavity (feed chamber) with tapered walls at its end so that
excess resin can be trimmed away at the taper point.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to use a ring gate instead of the runner 13a disclosed
by Tsuchiya, in view of the suggestion in the Handbook at page
185, col. 2, paragraph 7, that a ring gate be used when
molding round or cylindrical parts. Also, using a gate
(orifice) which has a relatively narrow width would have been
obvious in view of the Handbook's disclosure at page 183, in
the first sentence under
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007