Appeal No. 2005-1279
Application No. 09/924,285 3
2004) for the respective positions of the appellants and examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites a valve
assembly comprising, inter alia, “a piston which is substantially
rectilinear in cross-section.”1 Independent claims 12 and 22
contain substantively identical limitations. According to the
underlying specification (see pages 1 and 4), the straight walls
of such a piston are effective to wipe remnants of a settable
molding matrix from an upstream fluid flow passage into a mold
cavity.
Each of the appealed rejections rests on a finding by the
examiner that Nennecker or Gumery discloses a piston which is
substantially rectilinear in cross-section. In this regard, the
examiner points to the piston 18/piston rod 21 in Nennecker’s
molding machine mixing head and the piston 38 in Gumery’s
injection molding device (see pages 3 and 4 in the answer).
Although these prior art piston elements are cylindrical in
shape, the examiner submits that each has a rectilinear cross-
1 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co.
1977) defines “rectilinear” in the sense most pertinent to the
appellants’ usage as meaning “characterized by straight lines.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007