Appeal No. 1997-1285 Page 9
Application No. 08/307,153
Claim 33 is dependent on claim 26 and further requires that the mold cavity be further provided
with a portion for forming, during injection molding, a partial sealing strip overlying the end panel for
preventing, in use, complete separation of the end panel from the frame member. As pointed out by
appellant in the brief at page 5, this feature is absent from the combined prior art; neither Suzuki nor FR
196 shows this feature.
The examiner states that the sealing strip reads on the fold 19 of Suzuki. In regard to this claim,
the examiner is mixing and matching the product designs of Suzuki and FR 196 in a way not suggested
by the references. No reason, suggestion, or motivation for mixing these design features is offered by
the examiner and we ourselves see no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have added the
fold of Suzuki to the product design of FR 196. Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case in regard to the subject matter of claim 33.
Claim 36 is dependent on claim 26 and further requires a step of applying a sealing strip for
bridging a joint line between the frame member and the end panel. Appellant states in the brief at page
6 that the sealing strip of claim 36 is for a similar purpose as the sealing strip discussed above with
regard to claim 33. Neither Suzuki nor FR 196 suggest a sealing strip applied for bridging a joint
line between the frame member and end panel. The fold of Suzuki is part of the injection molded
frame, the fold is not applied to bridge the area where the frame member and end panel meet. Even if
the fold were a sealing strip as claimed, there would have been no reason, suggestion or motivation to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007