Appeal No. 1998-0812 Page 7
Application No. 08/378,954
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10 to 13
under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 13) that the prior art as
applied by the examiner (see pages 5-7 of the answer) does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
Claims 10 to 13 under appeal require injecting a first
plastic material into a mold cavity, injecting a small amount
of adhesive into the mold cavity, and injecting a second
plastic material into the mold cavity. It is our view that
these limitations are not suggested by the prior art as
applied by the examiner. In that regard, while Halkerston
does teach using an adhesive to join the inner core to the
outer layer, Halkerston would not have suggested modifying
Mares to provide adhesive in Mares' mold cavity.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Mares in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007