Appeal No. 2005-0169 Page 3
Application No. 10/118,754
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-17 as
being anticipated by Rosato. Rosato, in either the balanced eight-cavity “H” runner
layout illustrated in Figure 4-28(b) or the eight-cavity balanced runner system illustrated
in Figure 4-32, discloses a multiple cavity injection molding system comprising a feed
source, a plurality of mold cavities, a primary sprue (coming out from the page in both
Figure 4-28(b) and Figure 4-32) and a runner system extending between the sprue and
the cavities. The runner system includes primary runners extending from the sprue,
secondary runners branching from the primary runners at right angles thereto and
tertiary runners branching from the secondary runners at right angles thereto.
Inasmuch as the 90 degree angles of direction change between the primary and
secondary runners and secondary and tertiary runners meet the requirements set forth
on page 13 of appellants’ specification for turbulence inducing angles, the examiner’s
position that such angles are turbulence inducing angles appears reasonable on its face
and appellants have not disputed this.
As for the relative shear rates set forth in the claims, Rosato discloses on pages
248-249 a shear rate in the tertiary runner which is substantially the same as, even
slightly higher than, that in the primary runner. We appreciate appellants’ argument on
page 3 of the reply brief that the calculations on pages 248-249 of Rosato are for shear
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007