Appeal No. 1999-0899
Application No. 08/654,752
Rejection (2) therefore will not be sustained.
REJECTION (3)
In this rejection, the examiner alternatively applies
Salerno as teaching the provision of protrusions and
concavities on the mold halves for the purpose of forming
perforations in a molding process; as the examiner states at
page 8 of the brief, one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to form the perforations during molding in order to
reduce costs and processing time.
We agree with the examiner to the extent that we consider
that, in view of Salerno's disclosure of forming the mounting
holes 5 during molding of the parts 4, it would have been
obvious to form the mounting holes in the bracket(s) 46 of
Strapazzini during molding of the instrument panel. However,
we will not sustain the rejection because we agree with
appellants that even if Strapazzini and Salerno were combined,
the claimed method would still not be met (brief, page 6).
Claim 13 requires that one of the (male or female) molds
have a protrusion and the other of the molds have a
corresponding concavity, "whereby . . . said at least one
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007