Appeal No. 2006-0465
Application 10/445,707
44 connected to shaft 106 that is connected to frame 102, and vertically reciprocated by electric
motor 100 connected to control system 600 (e.g., col. 4, ll. 28-68; FIGs. 1-4 and 6). In the
illustrative embodiment, “the outer plungers [12,16] in a triple gob mechanism could be adjusted
by remote plunger height adjusting knobs 204 and 206” and “[t]he center plunger [14] may be
adjusted by setting motor 100 to a different ‘height’ and then aligning the outer plungers
manually” (col. 6, ll. 8-42, particularly ll. 27-32).
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art when considering the subject disclosure at
col. 11, ll. 25-28, in light of this disclosure with respect to the preferred, illustrative embodiment,
would have reasonably recognized that “a separate electric plunger . . . via separate support
brackets” is an “electric plunger” for each orifice, wherein each plunger is used with its own
plunger support bracket vertically attached to a shaft such that it is separately cyclically
reciprocated by an electric motor with electrical height adjustment through a control system.
In comparing the disclosure of Duga in this respect with appealed claim 1, we determine
that the reference electric plunger components include a plunger attached to a bracket or arm,
which is attached to a motor or actuator, and motion controlled through a system. However, the
location of these assemblies relative to each other and to the forehearth, and the location and
movement of the arm or bracket so as to align each “electric plunger” with its orifice is not
described in the reference, as appellants point out (reply brief, page 3). The examiner submits
that the claimed spatial relationships “would be met by keeping them in the protective housing
50 (see figure 1 and col. 4, lines 51-58)” (answer, page 8).
We find that Duga would have disclosed that housing 50 serves as protection for the
mechanism 10 and does not confine the components therein to any configuration. We further
find that this person would have been led by Duga to use a mechanism 10 illustrated in FIGs. 1-
4 for each “electric plunger” and would have arranged the mechanisms 10 with respect to the
orifices of the forehearth. However, on this record, we find no teaching in Duga alone or as
explained by the examiner which would have led this person to an arrangement of the
mechanisms 10 that results in the arrangement of the actuators, arms and plungers required by
independent claims 1 and 9. “Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference,
there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of the reference.
See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314,
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007