Ex Parte Garelli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 23, 2007

10051200 (B.P.A.I. May. 23, 2007)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 STEPHEN T. GARELLI
____________

Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 23, 2007
____________

Before THOMAS A. WALTZ, PETER F. KRATZ, and JEFFREY T.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the Primary Examiner’s rejection
of claim 8. Claims 1-7 are the only other claims pending in this application
but stand withdrawn from further consideration as directed to a non-elected
invention (Br. 1). Although the rejection appealed from is a non-final
rejection, we have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134 since the
claims on appeal have been twice presented and rejected. See Ex parte
Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1998).
Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200

According to Appellant, the invention is directed to a method of
molding comprising providing a molding machine with a mold containing an
upper mold segment, a lower mold segment, a movable core, a stem, a stem
opening, an air valve, a clamping force, where liquid moldable material is
injected and allowed to become a solid molded product, and a gas is injected
in the centered opening in the stem to open the gas valve in the centered
opening in the core and thus inflate the solid molded product until it is
released from the core (Br. 2-3). Claim 8 is the sole claim on appeal and is
reproduced below:
8. A method of molding, the method comprising:

(I) providing a molding machine containing a mold, wherein the mold
comprises:
(A) an upper mold segment having an upper surface;

(B) a lower mold segment having a bottom surface, and

(C) a moveable core having a top surface, a bottom surface and
a centered opening therethrough, said opening having a near end and a
distal end; wherein each mold segment has a confronting flat surface,
each mold segment being capable of mating with the other mold
segment at their respective confronting flat surfaces; there being
located in the confronting flat surface of each segment, a concavity,
each concavity having an opening centered in said concavity;

the opening in the concavity of the lower mold segment running
through the lower mold segment and exiting through the bottom
surface of the lower mold segment;

the opening in the concavity of the upper mold segment running
through the upper mold segment and exiting through the upper surface
of the upper mold segment;

2
Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200

the moveable core having an outside configuration essentially
identical to the concavities when the mold segments are mated with
each other, the core having integrally attached to the bottom thereof, a
stem, said stem being slidably mounted in the opening in the
concavity of the lower mold segment and extending beyond the
bottom surface of the lower mold segment, said stem having centered
therethrough, an opening;

the centered opening in the core having an air valve located in
and near the near end thereof, said centered opening in the core and
said centered opening in the stem being interconnected to allow the
intermittent passage of gas therethrough, there being a space created
between the outside configuration of the core and the concavities
when the mold segments are mated;

(II) providing a clamping force on the mold;

(III) injecting liquid moldable material into the upper mold segment via the
upper mold segment opening and allowing the liquid moldable material to
fill the space created between the outside configuration of the core and the
concavities;

(IV) allowing the liquid moldable material to become a solid molded
product;

(V) removing the clamping force on the mold and separating the upper mold
segment and the lower mold segment and thereafter, moving the core from
the lower mold segment;

(VI) thereafter, injecting gas into the centered opening in the stem, thereby
opening the gas valve in the near end of the centered opening in the core,
and allowing the solid molded product to be inflated by the injected gas until
the solid molded product is released from the core and thereafter, removing
the solid molde4d product from the mold.

3
Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200

The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Cole US 4,541,795 Sep. 17, 1985
Alieri US 5,786,079 Jul. 28, 1998
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cole in view of Alieri (Answer 3).
Appellant contends that Cole does not teach inflation of the solid
molded product, but teaches use of air pressure to move the closure device
from the mold, and thus does not include any requirement that the solid
product is forced over a core mold through a small opening (Br. 4).
Appellant contends that the use of the word “inflates” by Alieri cannot
mean expansion of the cap per se, as the cap has no capability to hold air
such that it can expand or inflate, and thus Alieri must mean that compressed
air loosens the cap by mere mechanical removal (Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that both Cole and Alieri disclose injection
molding machines that utilize gas to aid in ejection of the solid molded
product (Answer 4).1
The Examiner contends that Alieri does teach that the air inflates the
cap, that the shape of the cap is distorted via expansion, and the claimed
language does not preclude any other means used in removing the cap (id.).

1 We refer to and cite from the Revised Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 5,
2007.
4
Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200

The Examiner contends that the argued “requirement” that the solid
product is forced over a core mold through a small opening is not found in
the claims (Answer 4-5).
Accordingly, the dispositive issue presented in the record of this
appeal is as follows: does Alieri teach the use of air to “inflate” the molded
solid product and thus aid in its removal from the mold?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore we
AFFIRM the sole ground of rejection on review in this appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as the reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Cole discloses the method and molding machine essentially as
claimed, with the exception that the solid molded product is
ejected from the mold by a burst of air through an air injection
tube (col. 8, ll. 3-14; col. 9, ll. 54-65; Office action dated Jul. 26,
2005, pages 2-4);2
(2) Alieri discloses an injection molding machine and method of
molding plastic screw caps or closures, where one embodiment of

2 Appellant does not contest or dispute the Examiner’s findings that Cole
discloses or teaches the basic structure of the injection molding machine and
the method of molding as recited in claim 8 on appeal (Br. 4-6; see the
Office action dated Jul. 26, 2005, page 4; see also Cole, Abstract; Fig. 3, and
col. 6, l. 25 et seq.).
5
Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200

several methods of removing the solid molded product from the
mold involves sending compressed air inside the cap as soon as
the lower half-mold has moved away from the plunger, and the
feeding of compressed air “inflates” the cap and partially spaces
the thread C from the portion 9, reducing the resistance of the cap
to expulsion (col. 1, ll. 6-8; col. 6, ll. 38-60; and Fig. 11).
During prosecution before the Examiner, the verbiage of the proposed
claims should be given its broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account any enlightenment or definitions contained in the
applicant’s written description in the specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the first step in an obviousness analysis is proper claim
construction. Therefore, we first look to Appellant’s Specification to find
the proper meaning of the word “inflated” as used in claim 8 on appeal. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2005)(en banc)(“…the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the
claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). Appellant’s Specification does
not define “inflated” per se but teaches that this word is equivalent to
“expanded” (Specification 5:28-31; 6:4-7). This equivalency in the
Specification comports with the ordinary usage of the word “inflate” as
meaning “to swell or distend with air or gas,” “to expand or increase
6
Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200

abnormally,” or “to fill with air.”3 Accordingly, giving this word its
broadest reasonable meaning in light of the Specification, we construe the
claimed word “inflated” to mean that the solid molded product is expanded,
distorted, or filled with air or gas to aid in removal from the mold.
In view of our claim construction above, we determine that the
teachings of Alieri read on or encompass the “inflated” step of claim 8 on
appeal, namely that, to at least some minor extent, the cap or closure of the
reference is expanded, distorted, and filled with air. See factual finding (2)
listed above, where Alieri teaches that the apparatus “send[s] compressed air
inside the cap” (thus filling the cap with air), and the feeding of compressed
air “inflates” the cap by partially spacing the thread C from the portion 9,
thus distorting or expanding the cap (Alieri, col. 6, ll. 52-60; Answer 4).
We also determine that the Examiner has set forth a reasoned explicit
analysis of why Cole and Alieri are properly combined (Office action dated
Jul. 26, 2005, pages 4-5; Answer 4). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007). We also note
that the Examiner correctly states that Appellant’s argument concerning the
forcing of the molded product over the core mold is not found in the claim
on appeal (Answer 5).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under § 103(a) over Cole in view of
Alieri.

3 See Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary, 1159, Gove, ed., G. & C.
Merriam Co., 1971.
7
Appeal 2007-1922
Application 10/051,200

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED

cam

McKellar, IP Law, PLLC
784 South Poseyville Road
Midland, MI 48640

8