Appeal No. 2005-1413
Application No. 09/935,983
shape of the base portion of the same key fob (e.g., see
appellants’ Figures 6 and 7). Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish that parts of the Hendrickson injection
molding machine correspond to the mold blank cavity and the mold
portion cavity that together form a unified molding cavity (see
claim 5 on appeal; see also Hendrickson, col. 7, ll. 7-9). The
examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to have
different sizes and shapes of the cavity, or that any change in
the mold cavity size and shape is a “design choice,” have no
basis in the evidentiary record. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief, we
determine that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Therefore
we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under
section 103(a) over Hendrickson.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007