Appeal No. 2006-0501
Application No. 10/131,019
APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method of
making a molded plastic component. See the specification, page
1. Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in
representative claims 11, 17 and 18 which are reproduced below2:
ll. A method of manufacturing a molded plastic component,
comprising:
providing a film sheet having top and bottom surfaces, the
film sheet being selected from the group consisting of polyester,
polyurethane and polycarbonate;
vacuum molding the film sheet in a mold cavity to obtain a
pre-form;
placing the pre-form in a mold cavity of an injection mold
having a shape defining the desired plastic component; and
injecting a thermoplastic elastomer into the mold cavity of
the injection mold to generate a structural carrier for the pre-
form, the generation of the structural carrier creating
sufficient pressure and heat to bond the structural carrier to
the bottom surface of the pre-form to form the molded laminate
plastic component.
2 The appellants have argued that the prior art relied upon by the examiner does not teach
the limitations of claims 11 and 18. See the Brief, pages 4-6. However, the appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments for the separate patentability of claims 12 through 17
consistent with 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004) even though some of the claims on appeal are
subject to a different ground of rejection than claims 11 and 18. Id. Therefore, for purposes of
this appeal, we select claims 11, 17 and 18 from all of the claims on appeal and determine the
propriety of the examiner’s Sections 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the Answer based on
these claims alone. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1384, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465-66 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007