Appeal No. 2001-0083
Application 08/975,267
The Examiner has further found that Kubo teaches a vulcanizing mold setting
apparatus including a mold carriage for supporting the mold mount and transferring it to
the lower heating plate and a pair of mold supports each with two clamping members for
a total of four clamping members. Kubo is also said to teach a centering mechanism for
centering the mold on the lower heating plate (citing Kubo, column 3, lines 46-68).
Kubo is further found to teach at column 7, line 35 that the mold carriages may be
unmanned automatic mold carriages, thus inherently including a programming means
which could induce cyclical movement (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, lines 8-14).
The Examiner thus concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the mold carriage and
mold supports of Kubo for the shuttle of McMaster so that once the shuttle delivers the
mold to the forming area, it is free to move out of the way of the operation, thus
increasing the life of the shuttle or leaving it free to perform other tasks. The Examiner
also has concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to cyclically control the movement of the carriage and
thus the mold, to produce a consistent process with consistent glass sheet production.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 3, line 18 - page 4, line 4).
Initially, the Appellants challenge the use of the Kubo reference. It is, they
contend, non-analogous art. (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 8-12).
Prior art is relevant to the obviousness inquiry only if it is analogous, i.e., if it is
drawn from that inventor's field of endeavor or if it is "reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007