Appeal No. 1998-2039
Application No. 08/326,806
plate from each other, and removing from the injection
mold the window plate integrally provided with the
frame member along said at least one edge of the
window plate, said frame member having the ornamental
element on the outer surface of the lip section.
35. The method according to claim 31 in which
the pressure of the compressed gas injected into the
synthetic resin is less than the pressure of the
synthetic resin which is injected into the mold
cavity.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Friederich 4,101,617 Jul. 18, 1978
Hendry 5,098,637 Mar. 24, 1992
Kida et al. 62-268729 Nov. 21, 1987
(JP ’729)(published
JP application)
Claims 35 and 36 on appeal stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as lacking written description.
(Answer, pages 5-6.) Further, claims 13 through 18, 20 through
25, 31, and 32 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over JP ’729 in view of Hendry, while claims 33
through 36 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over JP ’729 in view of Hendry and further in view
of Friederich. (Id. at pages 4-5.)2
2 The examiner withdrew the final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2,
of claims 33-36. (Final Office action, p. 2; advisory action, PTO-303 form.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007