Appeal No. 2001-0083
Application 08/975,267
Kubo is directed to the use of a mold transfer mechanism for use in a tire
vulcanization machine, which is capable of automatically setting and aligning a tire
vulcanizing mold on a vulcanizing machine (Column 1, lines 6-11). Given the
similarities involved in each process and their overall configuration, i.e. the heated
spaces to cause an effect on a workpiece, the individual mold portions, the automated
process, and the alignment, we additionally find that Kubo is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved, and, therefore, analogous art.
The Appellants further urge that even if this combination were to be made, it
would not result in the claimed invention.
First, it is stated by the Appellants that McMaster II moves the upper mold
support to provide horizontal alignment and there is no movement of the lower mold
support to provide alignment with the upper mold. (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 4-7). We
disagree with both the Appellants’ claim interpretation, and their assessment of the prior
art.
As regards the Appellants’ claim, we note that nothing in the instant claims
excludes alignment of both the upper and lower mold portions. Furthermore, the
presently claimed lower mold support assembly provides support while “permitting
horizontal alignment of the lower mold with the upper mold.” In other words, the lower
mold support could hold still and yet permit alignment.
Turning now to the cited art, McMaster II clearly states that the “upper mold
support 26 and lower mold shuttle 20 are accurately registerable together via the
registration means 22, 30 when the upper mold support is moved relatively toward the
lower mold shuttle” (Col. 4, lines 1-4) and “the upper mold support 26 and lower mold
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007