Appeal No. 1998-0812 Page 6
Application No. 08/378,954
the article being molded are formed of different plastic
materials.
With regard to claims 10 to 13, it is our view that these
claims by reciting injecting "a first plastic material" into a
mold cavity and injecting "a second plastic material" into the
mold cavity when read in light of the appellant's disclosure
requires the first plastic material to be different (e.g.,
distinct) material from the second plastic material. In
addition, the broadening of the language from original patent
claim 1 does not violate the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Additionally, the
appellant's amendment to the summary of the invention filed on
September 16, 1996 (Paper No. 7) is not a proper basis for
this rejection.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007