Ex parte GROVE

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 1997

07970608 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 1997)

Application for patent filed October 8, 1992. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation-in-part of
Application 07/749,937 filed August 26, 1991, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DALE GROVE
__________
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,6081
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before COHEN, STAAB and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
The present application, filed pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.62,2
purports to be a continuation-in-part application of parent
application S.N. 07/749,937. As stated in the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 201.06(b) (6th ed., Rev.
2, July 1996, page 200-22), “[t]he original disclosure of an
application filed under 37 CFR 1.62 will be the original
parent application, amendments entered in the parent
application, and amendments filed on the filing date and
referred to in the oath or declaration by the inventor(s).”
In the present instance, a 37 CFR § 1.116 amendment originally
submitted on September 4, 1992 (Paper No. 6) in the parent
application, has been entered in the present application as a
preliminary amendment (Paper No. 11). However, this amendment
was not entered in the parent application and was not referred
to in the declaration filed on the filing date of the present
application. In light of these circumstances, appellant
should take whatever steps he deems appropriate in order to
avoid possible questions of lack of descriptive support in the
original disclosure (i.e., “new matter”) for the changes to
the claims effected by the previously unentered 37 CFR § 1.116
amendment originally submitted in the parent application, and
now entered in the present application as a preliminary
amendment.
2
This is a decision in an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, all the claims in the application.2
Appellant’s invention pertains to a method (claims 1-17)
and an apparatus (claims 18-20) for forming an article from a
molten plasticized resin using an injection molding machine.
Independent method claims 1 and 10 are representative of the
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
The present application contains no less than three3
appeal briefs. A first brief (Paper No. 19) was submitted on
March 22, 1995 and was found to be in non-compliance with 37
CFR § 1.192(c) for various reasons. See the notification of
non-compliance mailed April 28, 1995 (Paper No. 20). A second
brief (Paper No. 21), entitled “New Complete Appeal Brief,”
was submitted on May 31, 1995 and was also found to be in non-
compliance with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c). See the notification of non-compliance mailed
November 3, 1995 (Paper No. 22). There followed a third brief
(Paper No. 25), entitled “Second New Complete Appeal Brief,”
submitted on or about December 5, 1995. Subsequently, the
second notification of non-compliance was found to be in
error. See page 1 of the answer mailed January 22, 1996
(Paper No. 24). Accordingly, like the examiner, we will
consider the second brief (Paper No. 21) as a properly filed
appeal brief. Any reference to “the brief” in this decision
should be understood as referring to the second brief (Paper
No. 21), i.e., the “New Complete Appeal Brief.”
3
appealed subject matter and copies thereof, as they appear in
Appendix A of the appeal brief , are appended to this opinion.3
The single reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in support of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is:
Maus et al. (Maus) 4,828,769 May 9,
1989
The following rejections are before us for review:
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
4
a) claims 17 and 18, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph,
b) claims 1-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph,
c) claims 1, 2, 5 and 7, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Maus, and
d) claims 3, 4, 6, and 8-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Maus.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
In rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the examiner considers that claim 17 is
inconsistent with claim 10, from which it depends.
Specifically, the examiner maintains that the injecting step
of claim 17 calling for injecting plasticized resin “to
completely fill said pre-enlarged mold cavity” is inconsistent
with the injecting step of claim 10, which calls for injecting
into each pre-enlarged mold cavity a volume of plasticized
resin “insufficient to fill each pre-enlarged cavity.”
From our perspective, claim 17 does not merely impose a
further qualification on claim 10 by requiring that the
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
5
insufficiently filled cavity of claim 10 be completely filled,
as argued by appellant on page 6 of the brief. Rather, claim
17 imposes a totally different requirement on the claim 10
method, which requirement is inconsistent with the injecting
step previously required by claim 10. Accordingly, the metes
and bounds of claim 17 cannot be determined with any
reasonable degree of certainty since it cannot be determined
whether claim 17 calls for an injecting step that results in
insufficient filling of the mold cavity or complete filling of
the mold cavity. It follows that we will sustain the standing
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 17.
Turning to the standing § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claim 18, the examiner states:
Claim 18 is rejected . . . as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
the invention. Claim 18, as most recently amended
by the amendment of August 1, 1994, in line 12,
reads as follows: “contact of said frame with the of
said mold members”, such that “with the of said mold
members” is confusing. [answer, page 6]
Appellant, however, contends that “claim 18 is believed
to be in accordance with Appendix A [of the brief] and does
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
6
not contain the language to which the objection has been made”
(brief, page 6).
Having carefully reviewed the record of the present
application, we find that claim 18 was most recently amended
by the amendment submitted on August 1, 1994 (Paper No. 16),
which amendment contained the following directive:
Claim 18, line 10, delete “are”; line 11, delete
“the”; line 12, after “the” delete “other”; line 16,
change “the” to --a--, and insert --mold-- before
“cavity”. [emphasis added]
As a result of this amendment, the whereby clause at the
end of paragraph (b) of claim 18 now reads “whereby said
oversized mold cavity is formed by contact of said frame with
the of said mold members;”. In that appellant is incorrect in
his belief that claim 18 does not contain the language found
objectionable by the examiner, and in that appellant has not
otherwise disputed the examiner’s determination that the claim
18 as written is confusing, we are constrained to sustain the
standing § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 18. We
note, for completeness sake, that we are in agreement with the
examiner’s position that the claim terminology in question is
vague and indefinite to the extent that the recitation “with
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
The description requirement found in the first paragraph4
of § 112 is separate from the enablement requirement of that
provision. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1560-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
7
the of said mold members” appearing in the whereby clause of
paragraph (b) is confusing.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
In rejecting claims 1-20 under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, the examiner maintains that “[t]he original
claims, specification, and abstract lack a full, clear,
concise, and exact disclosure of how the compression of the
resin takes place simultaneously with the injection of the
resin” (answer, page 5). It is apparent from this statement
that the examiner’s rejection is based on an alleged failure
of the original disclosure to comply with the enablement
requirement, as opposed to the description requirement, of the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.4
The test for enablement is whether the disclosure, as
filed, is sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary
skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
8
undue experimentation. See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560,
566, 182 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1974). At the outset, we observe
that claims 10-14, 16 and 17 do not require that the
compression of the resin takes place simultaneously with the
injection of the resin. Thus, it is not clear how the
examiner’s concerns regarding enablement are relevant to these
claims.
With respect to the remaining claims, independent claim 1
and the claims that depend therefrom require the step of
applying force to the mold members to reduce a volume of the
mold cavity and compress the resin therein simultaneously with
the injection of the resin, independent claim 18 and the
claims that depend therefrom require means for applying force
to the mold members to pressurize the resin therein
simultaneously with the injection of resin, and claim 15,
which depends from claim 10, requires that the force applying
step comprises simultaneously compressing and injecting the
resin.
Turning to appellant’s disclosure, the specification, as
originally filed, states that “[s]imultaneously with the
injection of melt, pressure is applied to reduce the volume of
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 5505
(CCPA 1969).
9
the closed mold cavity and redistribute the resin within the
mold. This compresses the resin, which solidifies” (page 17,
last paragraph).
We believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate from this statement that the act of redistributing
the plasticized resin melt within the mold cavity involves
“compressing” the resin in the sense that a compressive force
is applied thereto to bring about redistribution. Consistent
with the well established principle that claim language must
be read in light of the specification, we consider that the5
words “compress” (claim 1, paragraph (c)), “compressing”
(claim 15), and “pressurize” (claim 18, line 18) cover
applying a compressive force to the plasticized resin melt,
such that the claim language questioned by the examiner
encompasses within its metes and bounds the act of applying a
compressive force to the melt as it is being injected to
redistribute the melt in the mold cavity. Given this
interpretation, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have no difficulty in adjusting the timing of
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
10
the force applying and injecting steps of appellant’s method
so that the melt is redistributed as it is being injected,
thereby resulting in simultaneously compressing and injecting
the resin, as now claimed.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims
1-20 as being based on a nonenabling disclosure.
For completeness sake, we make the following observations
regarding the examiner’s and appellant’s argued positions
regarding enablement. It appears from the record that
appellant is of the opinion that the Maus reference applied by
the examiner against the claims differs from appellant’s
invention because in Maus the oversized mold cavity is only
partly filled with melt before injection is completed, whereas
in appellant’s invention the oversized mold cavity is
completely filled with melt before injection is completed.
According to appellant, “[b]ecause of this difference, the
present invention can achieve simultaneous injection and
compression, while Maus does not” (brief, page 13). In
calling into question the enablement of appellant’s claims,
the examiner has repeatedly questioned this above-stated
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
11
position. In particular, the examiner maintains that (1)
appellant’s arguments and declarations are not commensurate in
scope with the appealed claims because the claims do not
require that the oversized mold cavity be completely filled
with melt before injection is completed, and (2) it is not
clear that appellant’s argued position can be supported by the
original disclosure.
It is questionable whether appellant’s opinion regarding
alleged differences in operation of the present invention vis-
à-vis Maus has any relevance to the § 112, first paragraph,
question of enablement of the invention as presently claimed.
As is made clear by our discussion above, it is our position
that (1) the simultaneous compressing (or pressurizing) and
injecting language of claims 1-9, 15 and 18-20 encompasses the
act of applying a compressive force to the melt as it is being
injected to redistribute the melt in the mold cavity, and (2)
the original disclosure provides an enabling disclosure for
this type of simultaneous compressing and injection. This
being the case, it is immaterial whether the present
disclosure also provides support for appellant’s argument that
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
12
the oversized mold cavity of appellant’s apparatus is
completely filled with melt before injection is completed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
Turning to the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5
and 7, independent claim 1 calls for the step of forming an
oversized mold cavity with respect to an opposing pair of
relatively movable mold members, and the step of applying
force to said mold members to reduce a volume of the mold
cavity and compress the plasticized resin therein
simultaneously with the injection of the resin.
Maus discloses two alternative modes of utilizing a
variable volume mold cavity to mold an article. In each case,
a pair of relatively movable mold platens (e.g., elements 82,
90) are first brought together in a so-called “soft” clamp-up
condition to close a parting line of a mold cavity (column 13,
lines 42-48; Figure 4). In the first alternative mode, after
the “soft” clamp-up condition is achieved, injection of resin
commences and movable platen 90 moves toward stationary platen
82 through a pre-set stroke length to reduce the volume of the
mold cavity from its “soft-close” volume to a final “full-
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
13
clamp-up” volume (column 13, lines 62-68; column 27, lines 7-
53; Figures 5 and 6). In the second alternative mode, a mold
plate (e.g., element 74) “floats” relative to its platen such
that, after the “soft” clamp-up condition is achieved,
injected mold resin enters the mold cavity and melt pressure
drives the floating mold plate backwards to enlarge the mold
cavity against a minimal deflection force required to displace
the floating mold plate (column 14, lines 1-7; column 29,
lines 3-23).
At the outset, it is readily apparent that the second
“floating” alternative mode does not anticipate claim 1. This
is so because any minimal compression force that might be
applied to the resin by the floating plate during injection in
the “floating” alternative mode occurs as the mold cavity
increases in volume from the initial “soft-close” volume. In
contrast, step (c) of claim 1 calls for applying force to the
mold members to reduce a volume of the mold cavity and
compress the resin simultaneously with injection.
As to Maus’ first alternative mode, the reference
discusses several schemes for coordinating the injection and
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
14
compression steps of the mold process. Specifically, Maus
states:
The onset of movable platen compressive clamping
force stroke can be alternatively controlled by
time; by the position of the reciprocating-injecting
screw of unit 101; or by a pressure sensor mounted
in the mold, for example. Of these, clamping
triggering control on the basis of time is probably
the least precise. Control based on time is also of
an “open loop” nature. Cavity pressure triggering
of clamping compression also requires that the
injected melt volume exceed the enlarged cavity
volume. This results in a pressurization of the
molten polymer up to the preset cavity pressure
level. This last phase of cavity fill against
increasing pressures, however, produces undesirable
molded-in stresses in the molded optical plastic
part. [column 27, line 56 through column 28, line 2]
With respect to controlling movement of the movable
platen by time, Maus is silent as to whether or not
compressive clamping force is applied simultaneously with
injection. Accordingly, this control scheme does not provide
a basis for an anticipation rejection of claim 1. As to
controlling movement of the movable platen according to cavity
pressure, while the resin would certainly undergo
pressurization or compression simultaneously with injection
according to this control scheme, such pressurization or
compression is not achieved “by applying force to said mold
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
15
members to reduce a volume of the mold cavity and compress
said plasticized resin therein,” as called for in step (c) of
claim 1. Accordingly, this control scheme also does not
provide a basis for an anticipation rejection of claim 1.
We are left with Maus’ third scheme for controlling
movement of the movable platen, i.e, by the position of the
injecting screw of the resin melt injecting unit, as a
possible basis for anticipation. With respect to this control
scheme, the examiner points to several portions of the Maus
disclosure, which, according to the examiner, establish that
Maus’ third scheme for controlling movement of the movable
platen results in applying force to reduce a volume of the
mold cavity and compress the resin simultaneously with
injection, as called for in step (c) of appealed claim 1.
These include: column 14, lines 22-29 (“The compression
portion of the molding cycle is initiated off of sensors
(preferably, screw position) even before the screw has
actually completed its travel and before subsequent full
delivery of the pre-determined injection volume . . . shot
size is completed”); column 19, lines 32-34 (“such is exactly
the case in preferred embodiments of the present invention,
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
16
whereby compressive clamping force and motions commence before
rapid injection fill is completed”); and, column 35, lines 14-
18 (“applying the main clamp force of the injection molding
machine before completion of said injection, so as to reduce
the volume of the mold cavity”). In addition, we also note
column 17, lines 23-26 (“when transducer 67a signals the melt
has nearly been completely delivered to the mold cavities, the
compression portion of the process is commenced”).
In responding to this rejection, appellant notes column
28, lines 15-22 of Maus, which, in pertinent part, reads:
Once the injection unit 101 has delivered the
precisely predetermined volume of melt which
corresponds to that screw position on transducer 67a
which triggers the start of clamping compression,
the control system 88 causes cylinder 80b (in the
preferred embodiment) to elongate, thereby advancing
movable mold platen 90 towards stationary mold
platen 82.
According to appellant, this disclosure establishes that the
compression phase of Maus does not start until after the
completion of injection.
The issue here is whether Maus discloses applying a force
to the mold members to reduce the volume of the mold cavity
and compress, as by redistributing, the resin in the mold
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
17
cavity simultaneously with resin injection. Upon careful
review of the entire disclosure of Maus, it is our conclusion
that there is no clear disclosure in Maus to this effect.
With respect to the above quoted portions of the Maus
disclosure pointed out by the examiner, initiating the
compression portion of the molding cycle prior to the
completion of injection, as described, for example, in column
14, lines 22-29, could perhaps result in applying a
compressing force to the resin already in the mold cavity, but
this circumstance does not necessarily result.
Notwithstanding the examiner’s implied position to the
contrary, without a more complete description of Maus’ molding
cycle, it is simply not possible to discern precisely what
happens to the resin melt already in the mold cavity upon
commencing the compression portion of the mold cycle before
the completion of injection. In this regard, it is possible
that initializing the compression portion of the cycle before
full delivery of the resin results merely in displacing any
void volume or gas in the oversized mold cavity, as occurs
during the initial portion of the faster phase of Maus’ multi-
stage compression (column 14, lines 35-51; column 28, lines
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
18
28-44). This interpretation is consistent with the statement
in Maus, at column 31, lines 64-66, that “[i]mmediately after
injection and while the cavities’ molten plastic is very hot
and mobile, the first stage of clamp-actuated profiled
compression starts” (emphasis added).
It is well established that anticipation cannot be
predicated on an ambiguous reference. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d
893, 899, 134 USPQ 355, 360 (CCPA 1962). In the present
instance, Maus is ambiguous as to the timing of the resin
compression and injection steps required to satisfy step (c)
of claim 1. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing §
102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 based on Maus.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Considering next the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8
and 9 as being unpatentable over Maus, each of these claims
through their dependency on claim 1, calls for the step of
applying force to reduce a volume of the mold cavity and
compress the resin simultaneously with injection. As noted in
our discussion above of the standing § 102 rejection, Maus is
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
19
ambiguous as to this claim requirement. In addition, it is
not apparent to us, and the examiner has not persuasively
pointed out, where Maus suggests modifying the timing of the
compression stroke step and injection step to accomplish step
(c) of claim 1, such that the claimed method as a whole would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In
this regard, the mere fact that the prior art method of Maus
could be modified in a manner which would result in the
claimed method does not make such modification obvious unless
the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). We therefore shall not support the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 as being unpatentable
over Maus.
As to method claims 10-17, independent claim 10 in
paragraph (c) calls for the step of commonly and
simultaneously applying a main clamp force of the injection
molding machine “before commencement of said injection. . . .”
In support to her § 103 rejection of these claims, the
examiner has taken the position that “the overall process of
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
20
Maus . . . is practically identical to appellant’s disclosure”
(answer, page 12) and that “the timing of the application of
force would have been readily determined through routine
experimentation by one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of appellant’s invention based upon the other variable
process parameters and conditions” (answer, page 11-12).
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a
factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
In making such a rejection, the examiner has the initial duty
of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because
of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. Id. In the
present case, the examiner has failed to advance any factual
basis to support the conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maus in
a manner which would result in the method of claim 10. Again,
the mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would
not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
As noted above, the whereby clause at the end of6
paragraph (b) of claim 18 is the subject of a rejection under
35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. For purposes of
rendering a decision of the merits of the standing § 103
rejection of this claim, we interpret the “whereby” clause at
the end of paragraph (b) of claim 18 as reading “whereby said
oversized mold cavity is formed by contact of said frame with
one of said mold members.”
21
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Gordon,
733 F.2d at 902, 221 USPQ at 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Maus
contains no such suggestion. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claim 10, or of claims
11-17 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Maus.
Independent claim 18 is directed to an apparatus for
forming an article from molten resin comprising, inter alia,
first and second mold members supported by first and second
platen members, with both of said mold members surrounded by a
relatively movable frame, whereby the oversized mold cavity is
formed by contact of said frame with one of the mold members.6
Maus discloses in Figures 2-8, for example, a first mold
member 5a, 70 and a second mold member 5b supported,
respectively, by first and second mold platens 82, 90. Maus
further discloses a relatively movable frame 74 surrounding
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
22
the mold member 5b. When the platens 82, 90 are moved towards
each other, relatively movable frame 74 engages portion 70 of
the first mold member to define, with the mold members, a mold
cavity. Unlike that which is called for in claim 18, however,
the relatively movable frame 74 of Maus does not appear at any
time to surround both of the mold member 5b and the mold
member 5a, 70.
In support of the standing § 103 rejections based on
Maus, the examiner states on page 11 of the answer that
appellant’s instantly claimed injection molding
apparatus was generally well known and conventional
in the art at the time of appellant’s invention, and
was mostly illustrated by Maus et al . . . except
for specifically referring to the mold members being
surrounded by a relatively movable frame . . . .
But this type of mold orientation was generally well
known and conventional in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention. [emphasis added]
Based on these allegedly well known and conventional
constructions in the prior art, the examiner implies that the
subject matter of claim 18 would have been obvious.
We cannot support this implied position. As with the
other § 103 rejections based on Maus, the examiner has again
failed to supply the requisite factual basis to support a
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
23
skill in the art to modify Maus in a manner which would result
in the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the examiner has
not explained, and it is apparent to us, where Maus teaches or
suggests providing Maus with a movable frame that surrounds
both of the mold members, as called for in paragraph (b) of
claim 18. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing §
103 rejection of claim 18-20 based on Maus.
Summary
The rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is reversed.
The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Maus are reversed.
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
24
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
25
George E. Kersey
P.O. Box 1073
Framingham, MA 01701
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
26
APPENDIX
1. A method of forming an article having a prescribed
volume and mass from a molten plasticized resin using an
injection molding machine, comprising the steps of:
(a) forming an oversized mold cavity with respect to
an opposing pair of relatively movable mold members of said
injection molding machine between which mold members said
article is formed;
(b) injecting into said oversized mold cavity a volume
of plasticized resin exceeding the prescribed volume of the
article to be formed and having a mass at least equal to the
prescribed mass of the article;
(c) applying force to said mold members to reduce a
volume of said mold cavity and compress said plasticized resin
therein simultaneously with the injection of said resin
thereby to form said article.
10. A method of forming a plurality of articles from a
molten plasticized resin using an injection molding machine
having first and second mold platens, first and second mold
members, each having a corresponding plurality of mold
structures, comprising:
(a) forming a plurality of pre-enlarged mold cavities by
adjusting relative positions of opposing mold members, at
least one of which is capable of movement relative to the
other, said mold cavities having dimensions determined by
distance between the platens, and said members initially being
separated to form pre-enlarged cavities with volumes each
greater than a maximum volume occupied at atmospheric pressure
by the molten plasticized resin to be injected into the
cavity, thereby to receive plasticized resin without
introducing back pressure;
Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
27
(b) injecting into each pre-enlarged mold cavity a
volume of plasticized resin larger than a volume of the
article to be formed but insufficient to fill each pre-
enlarged cavity;
(c) commonly and simultaneously applying a main clamp
force of the injection molding machine before commencement of
said injection to reduce the volumes of the mold cavities and
fill the reduced volume mold cavities while venting gases; and
(d) maintaining the applied main clamp force until a
final clamp lock-up position is reached, thereby compressing
the resin until slight excess is forced into a pressure relief
outlet and the resin solidifies.