Appeal No. 98-0395 Page 5
Application No. 08/333503
manufacture, "in a mold cavity," a substantially weld line free plastic part. Among the steps
in the method is "reducing the volume of the cavity along with the volume of the material
therein sufficiently to produce an essentially foam-free part." We do not agree with the
examiner that this is taught by Molbert. The reference discloses a mold cavity (5) which is
in the shape of the part to be formed. However, the material from which the part is formed
is not injected directly into the mold, but into a membrane (23) that ultimately is expanded
by the pressure of injection into the shape of the mold. In order to accomplish the
objectives of the Molbert invention, this expansion will be opposed by a fluid injected into
the space between the membrane and the walls of the cavity. Even if one considers that
Molbert injects a measured quantity of foamable plastic material into the cavity, neither the
volume of the cavity nor the volume of the material therein is reduced in the course of the
procedure, as is required by the appellant’s claim 1. The only reduction that occurs is in
the volume of the space between the membrane and the walls of the cavity, and that is
because the volume of mold material is increased, rather than reduced.
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of Molbert fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in the appellant's claim
1. The rejection of claim 1 is not sustained nor, it follows, is the like rejection of claims 2, 3,
14 and 15, which depend therefrom.
Independent claim 21 recites a process wherein a mold is pre-closed after molding
a prior part to form an enclosing compartment, whereafter the compartment is "explosively
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007