Appeal No. 1997-1054
Application No. 08/108,543
opening said die assembly to remove a thus completely
laminated molded assembly therefrom.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Hanamoto et al. 4,639,341 Jan. 27, 1987
(Hanamoto)
Sheffield et al. 4,653,997 Mar. 31, 1987
(Sheffield)
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hanamoto in view of
Sheffield.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
We cannot sustain this rejection.
As correctly pointed out by the appellants, the prior art
applied by the examiner contains no teaching or suggestion of
the “introducing” step defined by appealed independent claim
15. That is, we find nothing and the examiner points to
nothing in the Hanamoto and Sheffield references which would
have suggested somehow modifying the method of Hanamoto in
such a manner as to achieve the here claimed step of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007