Appeal No. 2001-0083
Application 08/975,267
issue or in question. We observe that Kubo teaches that the mold carriage is loaded
with a mold supporting plate. The plate when positioned in front of the vulcanizing
machine is moved by a mold moving mechanism into the tire vulcanizing machine,
where it is centered. (Kubo, col. 5, lines 24 - 60). Kubo discloses alignment of the
overall mold within the vulcanization machine and the automated insertion of the
support plate from a shuttle. Kubo is not relied upon for a particular mold type.
We therefore are unpersuaded by these arguments, and agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that McMaster II and Kubo rendered the claimed invention
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
The Rejections of Claims 13 and 16 and Claim 15 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
The Appellants have not directed any separate arguments to these rejections,
merely stating that this rejection is “deficient for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with the proposed combination of [McMaster II and Kubo]” and reiterating
the same argument. Accordingly, we summarily affirm this rejection for the reasons
discussed above in addressing the rejection over McMaster II in view of Kubo.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over McMaster II in view
of Kubo is sustained.
The rejection of claims 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over McMaster II and
Kubo as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of McMaster I, is sustained.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
McMaster in view of Kubo as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Austin, is
sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007