Appeal No. 2002-2062 Page 6
Application No. 09/207,631
the bag with resin, sealing the bag, placing the filled bag in a
mold, and molding the resin while in the bag and while applying a
vacuum. As acknowledged by the examiner (answer, page 6),
however, Brogan, like Degler, employs a closed mold cavity during
the vacuum applied molding step to form the desired molded
product rather than leaving the mold cavity open at an opening
thereof as required by appellant’s claimed method.
The difficulty we have with the examiner’s obviousness
position is that the examiner has not fairly explained why the
disparate teachings of Brogan and Degler would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Tourniaire in a
manner so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter. “It is
well established that before a conclusion of obviousness may be
made based on a combination of references, there must have been a
reason, suggestion or motivation to lead an inventor to combine
those references.” Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The examiner has only made general statements and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007