Appeal No. 1998-1008
Application No. 08/574,358
than "a portion" of a position profile, and (unlike claim 21)
does not require that the sensing be "at all times" during
movement of the movable die section; but rather, giving claim
24 its broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation
"during movement ... toward a first position" in lines 14-16
merely defines the direction in which the movable die section
is moving, rather than the duration of the time period during
which the sensing occurs. Claim 24 therefore reads on
apparatus, such as that of Sato, where the sensor senses a
position profile during part of the movement of the movable
die section from the second (ejection) position toward the
first (molding) position. Since Sato discloses apparatus
meeting all the limitations of claim 24, that claim is
anticipated.
We will therefore sustain the rejection of claim 24,
together with the rejection of claims 25 and 26, which
appellants have grouped with claim 24. 37 CFR 1.192 (c)(7).
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 21 to 23 is
reversed, and to reject claims 24 to 26 is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007