Appeal No. 2005-1549
Application No. 10/193,407
materials”). Nor do claims 11, 18 and 21 recite any limitation
restricting the thickness of the claimed plastic film sheet. In
re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982)(“Many of
appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because, as the
solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims”).
Second, we find that Enlow teaches employing either a male
vacuum former or a female vacuum mold to vacuum-form the
laminated face sheet to a desired shape. See column 14, lines
41-61. As correctly found by the examiner (Answer, page 6),
Enlow’s shaping of the laminated face sheet in a female vacuum
mold corresponds to the claimed vacuum molding of the film sheet
in a mold cavity. We find nothing in the record, which would
distinguish the claimed vacuum-molding in a mold cavity over
Enlow’s vacuum-shaping in a female mold. See, e.g., the Brief
and the Reply Brief in their entirety.
Third, as correctly found by the examiner (Answer, pages 3
and 6), Enlow teaches injecting a thermoplastic elastomer into
the mold cavity. See also column 15, lines 24-44 and column 16,
lines 1-16. The appellants acknowledge that the claimed
thermoplastic elastomer embraces the thermoplastic polyolefins
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007