Appeal No. 1997-4013 Page 8
Application No. 08/145,867
Figures 1 and 2 of Teraoka do illustrate the tie-bars 1a,
Teraoka does not discuss whether or not the tie-bars 1a extend
through corresponding holes in the second and third plates
(i.e., that the tie-bars extend through holes in the female
molds 3). Thus, we cannot, with any degree of certainty,
ascertain whether the leader pins as recited in claim 38 are
reader on Teraoka's tie-bars 1a. Under these circumstances we
cannot agree with the examiner that Teraoka anticipates the
subject matter of claim 38.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 38, and claim 39 which depends
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 26 to 33 and
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Upon evaluation of all the evidence
before us (i.e., the applied prior art), it is our conclusion
that the evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007