Case ID: ccpa_56-2/html/0899-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Worley, Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

405 F.2d 1313; 160 USPQ 548
    In re Louis H. Morin
    (No. 8079)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    February 6, 1969
    
      Burgess, By an & Hieles, attorneys of record, for appellant. John F. By an, of counsel.
    
      Joseph Schimmel for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, of counsel.
    [Oral argument January 8, 1969 by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Sherling]
    Before Worley, Chief Judge, Kirkpatrick, Judge, sitting by designation, Rich, Almond and Baldwin, Associate Judges.
    
   Worley, Chief Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of the court:

The issue here is whether the Board of Appeals committed reversible error in sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and 6-8 as unpatentable in view of certain prior art under 35 USC 103.

The invention relates to intercast plastic articles which are so cast as to provide free relative movement of the interconnected elements of the article with respect to each other- — -for example, a ball and socket, or a nut and bolt. One part, e.g., the ball, is cast by injection molding using a higher melting thermoplastic resin, while a second part, e.g., the socket, is cast at least partially about the first using a lower melting thermoplastic resin. The difference in melting point of the resins employed prevents fusion of the two cast parts, thus allowing relative movement between them. Claim 1 is representative:

1. A product of tbe character defined comprising two thermoplastic elements arranged one upon the other, said elements being relatively and freely movable, one element comprising a molded thermoplastic of one melting point, the other element being arranged upon the first element, and said other element comprising a molded -thermoplastic of a melting point lower than the melting point of said first element.

Claims 1, 2,1 and 8 were rejected under § 103 in view of Mainardi alone, with Arenson and Morin being relied on in conjunction with Mainardi for certain details of claim 6. As noted by the examiner and board, the main difference between Mainardi and appellant is that Mainardi, in intercasting a threaded container cap with a thermoplastic container body and container head utilizing the cap as a mold, expressly employs a cap which :

* * * may be made of metal or of a plastic material preferably a thermosetting ■■resin, and, in any case tbe melting temperatwe of said resin must be higher than tbe melting temperatwe of the plastic material constituting the body of the ¡container. [Emphasis supplied.]

Said the board:

'•? ⅝ * \ye are of tbe opinion that tbe words “metal or of a plastic material preferably a thermosetting resin” would include or make obvious the use of thermoplastic material for tbe cap * ⅜ * to one with ordinary skill in tbe art. * ⅜ *

We can say little more than that we agree with the board. There being, in general, 'but two classes of plastic resins — thermoset-ting and thermoplastic — the use of thermoplastic resins possessing the requisite melting point for the cap of Mainardi would be no less obvious to one of ordinary skill than the use of thermosetting resins.

We have examined the other allegations of error asserted by appellant, but find no merit in them. The decision is affirmed.

Kirkpatrick, J., took no part in the decision of this case. 
      
       Appearing in application serial No. 396,455, filed August 17, 1964 for “Intercast Relatively Movable Plastic Elements.” The application is a division of serial No. 203,759, filed June 20, 1962.
     
      
       U.S. Patent 2,945,266 issued July 19, 1960.
     
      
       U.S. Patent 3,038,194 issued June 12, 1962.
     
      
       U.S. Patent 2,768,415 issued October 30, 1956.
      Inasmuch as appellant has only cursorily discussed tbe Arenson and Morin references in his brief, and has not pointed out where the board erred in employing them to sustain the rejection of claim 6, those references need no further discussion on our part.