Appeal No. 2006-1227 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/960,606
The appellants argue that the aspect of a single blow molding operation is
adequately described in the U. S. Patent No. 4,228,122 to Hammes, the disclosure of
which is incorporated by reference into the instant disclosure on page 7 of appellants'
specification.
While the examiner recognizes that the disclosure of Hammes is incorporated by
reference and must be examined to determine whether the subject matter of the claim is
described so as to comply with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner is of
the opinion that Hammes does not disclose that there is only one single blow molding
operation.
Hammes discloses:
. . . the thermoplastic parison or tubular member is blown in a mold to form
a closed head drum and during this operation an intermediate form of the
roller chimes is produced and, after the blowing operation, movable parts
of the mold are displace. (emphasis added) (col. 2, lines 22 to 26).
We agree with the appellants that this disclosure makes it clear that there is only
one blow molding operation. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 3, 6, 7 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie in view of Przytulla and Hammes.
The examiner is of the opinion that McKenzie describes the invention as claimed except
that McKenzie does not describe the cylindrical side wall and the one-piece integrally
molded structure molded in a single blow molding operation. The examiner relies on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007