Appeal No. 1998-0316
Application No. 08/355,646
Ohasi, in that Ohasi's "mold cavity" includes not only the
cavity between mold halves 6 and 7 in which the molded product
(rotor) solidifies, but also the portion 5 which will be
occupied by plunger 8 after it has been projected downwardly
prior to solidification of the product. Ohasi's eject pin
(plunger) 8 is therefore projected "into the mold cavity with
the molds joined together" as claim 11 requires. Appellant's
argument on page 4 of the reply brief, first full paragraph,
is not well taken, because the mold cavity of Ohasi does not
"extend[] to wherever the tip of plunger 8 is located."2
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11, as well as of
claims 12, 15, 17 and 18 which appellant has grouped therewith
(brief, page 4), will be sustained.
Claim 13 recites:
The method according to claim 11 including
projecting the eject pin into the mold cavity two to
five seconds after injecting the plastic into the
mold cavity.
2While our conclusion is tantamount to a holding that
claim 11 is anticipated by Ohasi under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the
§ 103 rejection of that claim will be sustained, since "[t]he
complete disclosure of an invention in the prior art is the
ultimate or epitome of obviousness." In re Avery, 518 F.2d
1228, 1234,
186 USPQ 161, 166 (CCPA 1975).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007