Ex parte Yamazaki et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2000

08433206 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte HISAROU YAMAZAKI
and SEIICHI KUSAMA
__________
Appeal No. 1998-0839
Application No. 08/433,206
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before PATE, MCQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
and 7. Claims 2 through 6 stand as nonelected claims subject
to a restriction requirement. These are the only claims in
the application.
Appeal No. 1998-0839
Application No. 08/433,206
2
The claimed invention relates to a method for producing a
tank for a heat exchanger such as a car radiator.
Claim 1 reproduced below is further illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A method of producing a tank for a heat exchanger,
comprising the steps of:
forming an annular groove of a rectangular cross-section
in an open end surface of an annular skirt portion formed at
an open end of the tank over an entire periphery thereof;
receiving said skirt portion in a space formed by molds
so that an outer side surface and an inner side surface of
said skirt portion are held by said molds;
urging said outer side surface and said inner side
surface of said skirt portion toward each other by a
projection formed on a surface of one of said molds facing one
of said outer side surface and said inner side surface of said
skirt portion, said projection being formed on a portion of
said one of said molds operative to be opposed to a portion of
said one of said outer side surface and said inner side
surface of said skirt portion disposed in the vicinity of said
open end surface;
guiding, by a guide surface (55) formed on said surface
of said one of said molds having said projection and extending
from a bottom of said projection to a portion of said one of
said molds operative to be disposed in lateral registry with a
bottom surface of said annular groove, the deformation of said
one of said outer side surface and said inner side surface of
said skirt portion toward said annular groove; and
injecting a seal resin into said annular groove and a
seal-forming space formed in another of said molds opposed of
said annular groove.
Appeal No. 1998-0839
Application No. 08/433,206
3
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness is:
Kanai et al. (Kanai) 5,008,060 Apr. 16, 1991
Huff 5,246,065 Sep. 21,
1993
The admitted prior art as discussed on pages 1-4 of the
instant specification.
The Rejection
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Huff in view of Kanai and the admitted prior
art as found on pages 1 through 4 of the specification.
According to the examiner, Huff discloses the basic process of
molding a gasket onto a heat exchanger tank. The examiner
notes that Huff uses projecting fingers 22 which are
selectively heated to soften the fingers and are deformed as
the gasket deformation means molds the gasket for the tank.
With respect to the secondary reference, the examiner states
that Kanai discloses the detailed process steps of urging and
guiding as claimed in the third and fourth method steps of
claim 1 on appeal. Furthermore, the examiner is relying on
the admitted prior art from appellants’ specification as
Appeal No. 1998-0839
Application No. 08/433,206
4
evidence of the conventionality of the claimed projection
means. Based on these factual
findings, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to include urging and guiding means when performing
the process set forth in the primary reference.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to claims 1 and 7 on appeal. Therefore, the
rejection of these claims is reversed. Our reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner that the applied
prior art shows the steps of forming an annular groove;
receiving the skirt portion in a space formed by molds; and
urging the outer side surface or inner side surface of the
skirt portion one toward the other by a projection formed on
one of the molds. However, we do not find in the applied
prior art the step of guiding by a guide surface, particularly
where the guide surface extends from the projection in an
amount equal to the depth of the annular groove. The examiner
Appeal No. 1998-0839
Application No. 08/433,206
5
on page 4 of the answer and again on page 6 states that this
guiding means and guiding step are obvious in view of Kanai
with reference to column 3 of that patent. We do not find the
particular guiding means necessary for performing the guiding
step claimed by appellants in the Kanai reference in column 3
or any other location therein, nor do we find it in the
admitted prior art or the Huff patent. For this reason, the
applied prior art has not rendered the method of claims 1 and
7 prima facie obvious.
REVERSED
William F. Pate )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
John P. McQuade ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jeffrey V. Nase )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFP:tdl
Appeal No. 1998-0839
Application No. 08/433,206
6
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN,
MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037