Ex Parte Choi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 27, 2004

10118754 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAE HONG CHOI, JERALD L. GOLMANAVICH and BARRY B. HOFMASTER
____________
Appeal No. 2005-0169
Application No. 10/118,754
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, STAAB and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-4 and
14-17, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a multiple cavity injection molding system and
a method for promoting uniform filling of said mold cavities using such injection molding
Appeal No. 2005-0169
Application No. 10/118,754
Page 2
system. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’
brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Maus et al. (Maus) 4,965,028 Oct. 23, 1990
Rosato, Injection Molding Handbook, pp. 239, 242, 245, 248-249, 437 (Chapman & Hall
1995).
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-4 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rosato.
Claims 1-4 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maus in view of Rosato.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed January 30, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (mailed November 28, 2003) and reply brief (mailed April 1,
2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Appeal No. 2005-0169
Application No. 10/118,754
Page 3
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-17 as
being anticipated by Rosato. Rosato, in either the balanced eight-cavity “H” runner
layout illustrated in Figure 4-28(b) or the eight-cavity balanced runner system illustrated
in Figure 4-32, discloses a multiple cavity injection molding system comprising a feed
source, a plurality of mold cavities, a primary sprue (coming out from the page in both
Figure 4-28(b) and Figure 4-32) and a runner system extending between the sprue and
the cavities. The runner system includes primary runners extending from the sprue,
secondary runners branching from the primary runners at right angles thereto and
tertiary runners branching from the secondary runners at right angles thereto.
Inasmuch as the 90 degree angles of direction change between the primary and
secondary runners and secondary and tertiary runners meet the requirements set forth
on page 13 of appellants’ specification for turbulence inducing angles, the examiner’s
position that such angles are turbulence inducing angles appears reasonable on its face
and appellants have not disputed this.
As for the relative shear rates set forth in the claims, Rosato discloses on pages
248-249 a shear rate in the tertiary runner which is substantially the same as, even
slightly higher than, that in the primary runner. We appreciate appellants’ argument on
page 3 of the reply brief that the calculations on pages 248-249 of Rosato are for shear
Appeal No. 2005-0169
Application No. 10/118,754
Page 4
rates within the primary, secondary and tertiary runners and that the shear rates at the
entrance to the runner system and the exit from the runner system are not specified.
The calculated shear rates for the three runners, however, indicate that whatever losses
in shear rate occur over the lengths of the runners are substantially made up by the
geometry of the runner system, such that the shear rate of the material exiting the
runner system is at least 40%, 50%, 60% or 70% of the shear rate of the material
entering the runner system, as recited in appellants’ claims.
We also note appellants’ argument (brief, page 4) that Rosato does not teach
that turbulence or turbulence inducing components maintain a shear rate of the material
and that, rather, it is the decrease in radius which causes the shear rate increase. Even
assuming appellants are correct that a reduction in runner radius as taught by Rosato
on page 249 substantially causes the shear rate increase, this is of no moment,
inasmuch as appellants’ claims do not require that the turbulence inducing components,
much less the turbulence inducing components alone, cause the shear rate increase.
Moreover, it appears that at least some degree of shear rate increase would inherently
occur or result from the presence of turbulence inducing angles in the runner system.
Appeal No. 2005-0169
Application No. 10/118,754
Page 5
1 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be
no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what
the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,
that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the
examiner erred in determining that claims 1-4 and 14-17 are anticipated1 by Rosato.
We thus sustain this rejection.
We shall not, however, sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-17
as being unpatentable over Maus in view of Rosato. It is not apparent to us exactly
what the examiner’s findings are with regard to Maus and how the examiner is applying
the teachings of Rosato thereto. In particular, it is not apparent whether the examiner
considers the recited shear rate ratios of appellants’ claims to be met by Maus or
whether the examiner finds suggestion to modify the system of passageways and
torpedo-shaped shearing device of Maus to achieve such shear rate ratios. If the
examiner’s position is the former, we find no support in Maus therefor. If the examiner’s
position is the latter, it is not apparent to us what in Rosato’s teachings of primary,
secondary and tertiary runners disposed at right angles relative to one another, and the
respective shear rates therein, would have provided suggestion to modify Maus’
runnerless or hotrunner/shortrunner melt delivery system to achieve the recited shear
rate ratios.
Appeal No. 2005-0169
Application No. 10/118,754
Page 6
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
sustained and the rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
A rejection of every claim on appeal having been sustained, the examiner’s decision is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-0169
Application No. 10/118,754
Page 7
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
1300 Post Road, Suite 205
Fairfield, CT 06430