Appeal No. 98-0395 Page 2
Application No. 08/333503
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a process of operating an injection molding
machine. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Molbert 4,031,176 Jun. 21, 1977
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was
filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 14, 15, 21-23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Molbert.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 10) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
1Claim 6 was included in this rejection in the second office action (Paper No. 4),
but was not listed in the final rejection (Paper No. 6) or in the Answer (Paper No. 11). We
therefore consider it as having been withdrawn by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007