Appeal No. 1997-1796
Application 08/422,491
which causes the flats to engage the seat “such that . . . said screw point is aligned about said
longitudinal axis.” This disclosure establishes that the engagement of the seat and flats specified in claim
1 will result in recentering. It is not apparent from any disclosure in Oas, and the examiner has not
pointed to any, that the apparent angle of 90 degrees formed when the flats of pin 65 engage the front
seat of check ring 31 as shown in Oas Figure 8B would align the screw point about the center axis, thus
recentering it. Indeed, it is not apparent from Oas Figure 8B that the mere engagement of the flats of
retainer end 65 and valve seat 31 would provide for the alignment of the screw point of piston screw 28
given the tolerance evident between barrel 12 and retainer end 65. Thus, it is not apparent from the
examiner’s explanation that the extruder assembly for an injecting molding machine shown in Oas would
meet expressly or inherently meet each and every limitation of the claimed extruder assembly for an
injecting molding machine encompassed by claim 1, arranged as required by this claim. See generally,
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We further find that the examiner has not responded to appellant’s
argument that “[t]here is no disclosure in [Oas] that the angle of the screw point is calculated to prevent
a reduction in the cross sectional area of the extruding head in the area of the pin” (brief, page 7).
Accordingly, we reverse the ground of rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) over Oas as well as the ground of rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Oas as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 further in view of Haines et al.,
Strassheimer and Wogerer (answer, page 4). As to the latter ground of rejection, we find that, as noted
by appellant (brief, pages 7-8), the secondary references do not cure the deficiency that we identified in
Oas above with respect to the limitations of claim 1. Indeed, the examiner admits in the subsequent
ground of rejection that Haines et al., Strassheimer and Wogerer “do not disclose the pin matching the
taper angle of the check valve” (answer, page 5). Thus, we reverse the ground of rejection which is
based on these three references in view of Oas as well (id., pages 4-5).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007