Appeal No. 2005-0322
Application No. 10/431,268
Responding to the appellant’s argument that this proposed
reference combination stems from impermissible hindsight, the
examiner adds that
since Holbrook and Ing et al., as well as the primary
references, each are directed to the same field of
endeavor of clamping mold platens via tensioning of tie
bars through the use of interlocked thread portions,
. . . it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan
to modify any of the primary references by providing
the interlocked threaded engagement with an increasing
axial clearance, as disclosed in either Holbrook or Ing
et al., in order to compensate for strain
deformation/stretching of the tie bars. In other
words, a skilled artisan would have recognized from the
teachings of Holbrook or Ing et al. that increasing
axial clearance between interlocked thread portions has
utility for compensating for tie bar
stretch/deformation under the tensioning of the tie
bars during mold clamping, and such a skilled artisan
would have been motivated to modify the threaded
engagement of any one of the primary references
(wherein one of the threaded portions is provided on
the tie bars) in the manner suggested by either
Holbrook or Ing et al. to accomplish such benefits
[answer, pages 5 and 6].
Obviousness cannot be established by combining prior art to
produce the claimed invention absent some teaching or suggestion
supporting the combination. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by an examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. Id.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007