Appeal No. 1997-4387
Application 08/308,963
questioned by the examiner. Therefore, we will affirm the
rejection of claims 1 through 10, 15, and 16.
Turning now to the obviousness rejection of claims
1, 2, 7 through 10, 15, and 16 as rejected under § 103 over
Goto, and claims 3 and 4 as rejected over Goto in view of
Loscei, we will not sustain these rejections. As noted by
both the appellants and the examiner, the primary reference to
Goto does
not have a structure that corresponds to or renders obvious
appellants' claimed convex member. Furthermore, with respect
to the examiner's argument that the convex member to attach
the upper mold to the movable platen would have been within
the purview of the prior art, we find no factual basis for
this argument. There is certainly no basis in the Goto or
Loscei references for a convex member as appellants claim.
Accordingly, the obviousness rejections on appeal are
reversed.
Finally, we note another issue that should be
clarified in any other prosecution before the examiner.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007