Appeal No. 2005-2723
Application No. 10/014,084
b) introducing the free-flowing reaction mixture into a mold,
c) allowing the reaction mixture to finish reacting in the mold, and
d) removing the molded part from the mold.
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Fitzgibbon 5,464,585 November 7, 1995
Harrison et al. (Harrison) 5,716,548 February 10, 1998
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Fitzgibbon.
The Examiner also rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fitzgibbon in view of Harrison. (Answer, page 3, referring the the Office Action mailed May
[sic, June] 2, 2004).
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including all
of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections are
well founded. Our reasons follow.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (mailed July
5, 2005) and the Office Action mailed June 2, 2004 for the Examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to the Briefs (filed June 7, 2005 and September 8, 2005) for the Appellants’
arguments there against.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007