Appeal No. 1998-3278 Page 4
Application No. 08/647,881
formation of visible bubbles in the composition is prevented by dissolving air within the composition
during curing in the mold tool. As pointed out by the Appellant (Brief, page 9), Haines is directed to a
process of molding thermoplastic, not multi-component cross-linking compositions. Looking to the
specification, it is clear that “liquid cross-linkable composition” is to encompass an incipiently mixed
reactive resin such as a two-component polyester resin (page 7, last line to page 8, line 3). “During
patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, the language
cannot be interpreted as encompassing thermoplastic compositions which harden by cooling. Such a
broad reading of “liquid cross-linkable compositions” is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words “liquid cross-linkable composition” in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-1055, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of molding,
a cross-linking composition hardens due to a cross-linking reaction. We note that, in the process of
Haines, molten thermoplastic material is injected into a mold (col. 3, lines 17-18) and the thermoplastic
solidifies within the mold cavity (col. 3, line 64). There is no description of cross-linking, and the
thermoplastic simply hardens by solidifying presumably upon cooling.
Furthermore, noticeably missing from the rejection is any finding that Haines teaches or suggests
molding at an elevated uniform pressure as required by step (e) of claim 1. The Examiner finds that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007