Appeal No. 2001-0083
Application 08/975,267
shuttle [are] accurately aligned by the registration means.” (Col. 4, lines 13-15). The
lower mold is capable of movement to be aligned with the upper mold in McMaster II.
The Appellants further argue that Kubo fails to teach the support of a lower mold
for horizontal movement for alignment with an upper mold during cyclical operation of
the apparatus, relying on the setting of the upper and lower molds together on the
platen of a tire vulcanization apparatus at the beginning of a production cycle. (Appeal
Brief, page 5, lines 13-18). In response, the Examiner notes that it is the support
assembly of Kubo which is being added to the McMaster II apparatus. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 5, lines 14-15).
We agree with the Examiner. Kubo’s support assembly, not the mold assembly,
is being added to the McMaster II apparatus. Motivation for this substitution is clearly
found in the Kubo discussion of automating the first step of placing the mold into the
vulcanization machine, to save on time and work, thereby reducing costs. (Kubo,
column 2, lines 2-12).
Finally, the Appellants argue that this combination fails to provide a lower mold
shuttle and a lower mold support assembly between which a lower mold is cyclically
transferred to permit horizontal alignment of the lower mold with the upper mold as
necessary This is said to be so because McMaster II involves movement of the upper
mold and Kubo initially aligns both the upper and lower mold portions. (Appeal Brief,
page 5, line 20 - page 6, line 7). We disagree.
As noted above, McMaster II allows alignment of both the upper and lower mold
halves during the downward stroke of the apparatus. See, especially, the discussion at
McMaster II, column 4, lines 1-6, and lines 50-58. Further Kubo’s mold type is not at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007