Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
shaping stage and the quenching stage.
Appellants have not proffered any persuasive argument with
respect to the examiner's reliance on McMaster and Kuster as
evidence that "quenching rings" were well-known expedients in the
glass shaping art for transporting hot, shaped sheets of glass
from a shaping stage to a quenching stage. Rather, appellants
have simply argued that McMaster and Kuster, like Seymour, are
not relevant because they, too, are directed to drop forming.
Nevertheless, as we have concluded above, appellants' claims are
of such a scope as not to exclude further subsequent shaping by
dropping the already-shaped hot sheet of glass on a shaping mold.
We also observe as we have noted above that Seymour does disclose
the use of ring molds for moving heated glass sheets in a shaping
process.
Having concluded that the examiner has made out a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the appealed subject
matter, it is necessary for us to consider appellants' rebuttal
evidence, if any, and to reconsider the prima facie case anew in
light of all the evidence. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, except for
appellants allegation on page 5 of their brief of the alleged
benefits of the process of Claim 10 compared to the prior art,
appellants have neither presented any rebuttal evidence nor
advanced any arguments with respect to any probative showing of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007