Appeal No. 2004-1495 Page 3
Application No. 09/526,631
(6) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Moore in view of Amaya and Spillman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rejection (1)
Arai discloses a molding device for molding optical elements, in particular Fresnel
lenses, comprising a molding machine including a high frequency induction heating
means 18 and a moving side mold 2B and a fixed side mold 2A, each having a
temperature sensor 20A, 20B embedded therein and cooling channels connected by
pipe 14A to a temperature controller 14. The signals from the temperature sensors are
transmitted to a temperature controller 22 which compares the detected temperatures to
a predetermined peak temperature to see if the predetermined peak temperature has
been reached or exceeded. Upon mold initiation, the moving side mold 2B is moved
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007