Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
with the shaping blocks is retained). That is all that Claim 10
requires. Further, we observe that Claim 10 merely recites a
"suction mold" and appellants have disclosed that useful suction
molds include molds with convex surfaces, concave surfaces, "an
upper suction mold", "a lower suction mold" or a "hanging press
mold." At page 7 of the specification appellants describe the
lower central area of the suction chamber as having a
"substantially flat bottom panel which serves as a central flat
area of the shaping surface." Thus, we do not understand Claim 10
to exclude or distinguish from the vacuum platen 40 used by
Seymour.
As a "comprising" claim, Claim 10 also does not exclude the
steps in Seymour providing for additional shaping after the
removal of a vacuum from the glass sheet or the additional curved
shaping rails used in Seymour's method before the application of
a vacuum. Claim 10 does not recite or require any particular
degree of shaping but merely requires shaping. Seymour's process
clearly shapes the heated glass sheets while they are in contact
with the vacuum platen 40 and shaping blocks 120 and, therefore,
meets the " to shape" limitation recited in Claim 10. Appellants'
argument that after shaping the glass sheet in their process is
moved "directly to the quenching ring" is simply not reflected in
the language of claim 10. Moreover, as a "comprising" claim,
Claim 10 does not exclude other intervening steps between the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007