Appeal No. 1998-2039
Application No. 08/326,806
as box-sectioned frame member for an automobile or refrigerator
door or the hood of a car having a reinforcing beam.” (Column
2, lines 43-47.) By contrast, the appellants’ use of
pressurized gas is to cause the synthetic resin material to flow
along the clamped edge of a window plate forcing the resin
against the window plate while forming a continuous hollow inner
space within the synthetic resin material. In this way, the
appellants have overcome numerous problems in prior art
processes. In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237,
243 (CCPA 1969).
On balance, it is our judgment that the evidence in support
of obviousness does not outweigh the evidence of support of
nonobviousness.
Summary
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejection under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 of appealed claims 35 and 36
as lacking written description. We reverse, however, the
examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed
claims 13 through 18, 20 through 25, 31, and 32 as unpatentable
over JP ’729 in view of Hendry and appealed claims 33 through 36
as unpatentable over JP ’729 in view of Hendry and further in
view of Friederich.
The decision of the examiner is therefore affirmed in part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007