Appeal No. 2001-0083
Application 08/975,267
even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself
to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659,
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Examiner has stated that “[t]here is nothing in the claims on appeal, as
recited, that limit the mold of the instant invention to glass sheets.” (Examiner’s Answer,
page 5, lines 9-10). The Appellants specifically point to the preamble of claim 1 and the
last two lines, both of which reference a heated glass sheet. (Reply Brief, page 1, line 1
- page 2, line 9). The preamble of a claim may or may not be limiting, depending on
the language of the claim. Furthermore, the referencing of a glass sheet, as opposed to
its actually being claimed, renders the claim broader. In the present instance, the glass
sheet itself is not claimed.
Furthermore, we note that considering the particular problem facing the
inventors, this reference would have logically commended itself to their attention. As
stated in the specification, the invention relates to an “apparatus and method for forming
heated glass sheets while providing alignment between lower and upper molds used in
the forming.” (Specification, page 1, lines 4-7). Further, “[f]or effective high yield glass
forming, it is important for cooperable molds to be properly positioned upon mounting
and aligned with each other during each cycle of operation therebetween, which is
made more difficult due to the heated environment in which the glass sheet forming
takes place.” (Specification, page 2, lines 6-11). Thus, we find the particular problem
which was confronted by the inventors to have been the alignment of mold portions in a
heated environment, for the forming of glass sheets.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007