Appeal No. 1999-1408 Page 6
Application No. 08/809/629
monitor and adjust the various functions so that the machine can be operated in the most
efficient manner. Therefore, to the extent that this is not inherently accomplished in
Hofmann, it would have been obvious in view of Leweringhaus to modify Hofmann by
installing a system that presses the plug and the glass together according to
predetermined temporal dependency on force and feed for the self evident advantages of
causing the system to operate effectively and efficiently, which would have been known to
2
the artisan.
For the foregoing reasons, it is our conclusion that the teachings of the applied
references establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter
recited in claim 31, and we will sustain the rejection of this claim as well as that of claim 33,
the separate patentability of which was not argued before this Board. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claim 32 adds to claim 31 the requirement for a “supply line” that is connected to
the molten glass feeder and is displaced from a feeding position when the press-molding
take place. Such structure is not disclosed or taught in either of the references, and we
3
therefore will not sustain the rejection of this claim.
2Skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. See
In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
3There is no antecedent basis for “the feeder chute” recited in line 4 of claim 32.
This defect is worthy of correction.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007