Appeal No. 2005-0169 Page 2
Application No. 10/118,754
system. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’
brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Maus et al. (Maus) 4,965,028 Oct. 23, 1990
Rosato, Injection Molding Handbook, pp. 239, 242, 245, 248-249, 437 (Chapman & Hall
1995).
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-4 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rosato.
Claims 1-4 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maus in view of Rosato.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed January 30, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (mailed November 28, 2003) and reply brief (mailed April 1,
2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007