Appeal No. 1998-2039
Application No. 08/326,806
disclosure does not support the subject matter of appealed
claims 35 and 36.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The appellants correctly point out that JP ’729 does not
describe the use of compressed gas as recited in steps (B)
through (D) of appealed claims 31 and 32. (Appeal brief, page
8.) The examiner appears to concede this point. (Answer, page
4.)
To account for this difference, the examiner relies on
Hendry. Specifically, it is the examiner’s basic position that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to injection mold as
taught by Hendry in the process of Japanese reference ’729 in
order to form a lightweight frame which would not shrink upon
cooling as shown in Figures 6 and 8 and which is reinforced at
selected locations.” (Answer, pages 4-5.)
We cannot agree with the examiner. As argued by the
appellants (appeal brief, pages 9-12), Hendry’s use of
pressurized gas is quite unlike that of the appellants’ claimed
invention. Hendry’s disclosure relates to “relatively large
size structural articles for use in diverse product fields, such
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007