Appeal 2007-0921
Application 10/793,878
acknowledges that Carden does not teach or suggest, inter alia, that a die
cylindrical supply unit thereof includes heating means, or that the supply
unit is connected to a vacuum device (Answer 3 and 4). However, the
Examiner maintains that:
Premkumar et al discloses heating means (9a) at the
injection cylinder for the purpose of preventing premature
solidification (col. 7, lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to
provide heaters at the injection cylinders as taught by
Premkumar et al, in Carden et al in order to prevent premature
solidification.
….
Cook discloses a vacuum device in conjunction with an
injection cylinder for the purpose of eliminating oxidation to
the molten metal (col. 1, lines 43-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to
have vacuum at the injection sleeve as taught by Cook, in
Carden et al and Premkumar et al, in order to prevent oxidation
at the injection cavity.
Answer 4.
Appellants, on the other hand, maintain that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the appealed claims as obvious over the applied combination of
references because the Examiner has not furnished a reasonable evidentiary
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013