Appeal No. 2005-1413
Application No. 09/935,983
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendrickson
(Answer, page 3, referring to the final Office action dated Jan.
5, 2004). We reverse the rejection on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Hendrickson teaches an apparatus
having a mold base (14) which can accommodate different mold
inserts (36) that would have different cavity features, allowing
for different parts production (final Office action dated Jan. 5,
2004; see the Answer, page 3, paragraph (10)). The examiner
further finds that the inserts are the mold blanks that are
placed into the recesses provided by the mold base (id.).
The examiner finds that Hendrickson fails to teach “mold
blanks and the cavities adapted to form an extending tab and base
portion of the key fob, and cavities of different sizes and
shapes.” Id. The examiner concludes that different cavity
shapes and sizes are inferred by Hendrickson’s teaching regarding
the production of different parts, and it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to “have different shapes and
sizes of the cavity shapes to be used” (id.).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007