Appeal No. 1997-2567
Application 08/390,029
argument is not well taken.
For the above reasons we conclude, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, that the invention recited in
claim 4 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claims 5, 7 and 10
Claim 5 requires that the cross section of at least one
imbibing opening is different from that of the other openings.
Claim 7 requires means for stopping up at least one of the
imbibing openings, and claim 10 recites that the stopping-up
means is a bolt.
For a disclosure of the above elements required by claims
5, 7 and 10, the examiner relies upon Hahn. This reference
discloses a method and apparatus for extrusion of multiple
layer sheeting, wherein conduits through which resin flows to
form the layers can be partially or completely blocked by
screws (col. 5, lines 14-20; col. 6, lines 38-45; figures 4-
6). The examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious
for an artisan at the time of the invention, to provide the
imbibing openings of the piston/cylinder material feeding
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007