Appeal No. 1998-0316
Application No. 08/355,646
same reasons as claim 16.
The rejection of claim 19, and of claims 20 to 22
dependent thereon, will not be sustained. With regard to
claim 19, the examiner states (answer, page 9):
The applied Osada reference teaches as conventional
the provision of mold plates which support the
cavity block and are further compressed during
injection molding of thermoplastic by spacer blocks.
See col. 1 [sic: col.3?], 1n. 61 to col. 2 [sic:
col. 4?], 1n. 21.
Claim 19 requires, inter alia, "supporting a cavity block
of a first mold on an elastic post" and "axially compressing
the elastic post . . . and thereby projecting the eject pin
into the mold cavity with the molds joined together." It is
not apparent from the examiner's statements how the disclosure
of Osada would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary
skill the use in the Ohasi apparatus of an elastic post which
supports a cavity block and would be axially compressed to
thereby project the plunger 8 of Ohasi into the mold cavity.
Absent any such teaching or suggestion in the applied prior
art, there is no basis for sustaining the rejection of claims
19 to 22.
Conclusion
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007