Ex Parte Tuma - Page 4



                Appeal 2006-2308                                                                               
                Application 10/343,154                                                                         

                                            BACKGROUND                                                         
                      The invention relates to a process for producing an adhesive closing                     
                part with laterally symmetrical interlocking structures integrally connected                   
                to a backing. Each interlocking structure has a stem part, a head part at one                  
                end of the stem part, and a base part at an opposite end of the stem part                      
                where the stem part is connected to the backing. The process involves                          
                supplying moldable material to a shaping zone between a pressure tool and a                    
                molding tool to form the backing. The molding tool contains mold cavities,                     
                having a rotationally symmetrical hyperboloid shape.  According to                             
                Appellant, the shape of the mold cavities facilitates removal of the                           
                interlocking structures from the mold cavities, even at very high production                   
                rates. In addition, Appellant maintains that the interlocking structures                       
                formed by the claimed process adhere well and can be joined easily to one                      
                another, since the interlocking structures are properly formed and are not                     
                damaged during removal from the mold cavities.                                                 
                                                DISCUSSION                                                     
                      Claims 11, 14-16, 18-20 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                         
                §103 as unpatentable over Hammer in view of Thomas.  The Examiner relies                       
                                                      4                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007