Appeal No. 2005-0322
Application No. 10/431,268
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over any one of Mailliet, Choi, Arend or
Hammon in view of either Holbrook or Ing.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
July 23, 2004 and October 29, 2004) and the answer (mailed
September 3, 2004) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.
DISCUSSION
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s determination
that each of the alternatively applied primary references,
Mailliet, Choi, Arend and Hammon, teaches or would have suggested
an injection molding machine comprising a stationary platen, a
movable platen constructed for movement relative to the
stationary platen, at least one tie bar for tension-proof
connection of the stationary and movable platens, and a traction
transmitting securing device including a securing element
disposed on a rear side of one of the platens for interacting
with the tie bar within an engagement zone, wherein one of the
securing element and the tie bar has a number of projections in
axial spaced-apart relationship and the other one of the securing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007