Appeal No. 1998-1821
Application No. 08/584,606
(e) removing the tie from the mold;
wherein step (a) comprises providing a said mold in which
one of the mold parts is a movable core that defines at least
a portion of a surface of the abutment wall that is on the
opposite side of the abutment wall from the portion of the
abutment surface that includes the at least one abutment
surface tooth; and
wherein step(d) comprises the step of
(f) moving the core to thereby enable the abutment wall
to flex in a direction away from the pawl into a space vacated
by movement of the core so that the tie can be removed from
the mold pursuant to step (e) without significantly damaging
the at least one abutment surface tooth.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Drevalas 3,049,758 Aug. 21,
1962
Caveney et al. (Caveney) 3,660,869 May
9, 1972
Paradis 4,473,524 Sep. 25,
1984
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Paradis,
Caveney and Drevalas.
We have carefully considered the specification, claims
and applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced
by both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This consideration leads us to conclude
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007