Court Opinion

ID: 9453603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:18:44.729462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:43.764264
License: Public Domain

RICH, Judge
(concurring).
While I agree with the affirmance of the rejection of claims T-3 and 10-17 on the Harris and Galloni references, I cannot agree with the apparent treatment by the board and the majority of the “line of flash” recitations in certain claims as some kind of process limitation in claims to structure.
Taking claim 1, quoted in the majority opinion, as an example, it seems clear to me that the only significance of the references to the “line of flash” is as a reference point defining the plane in which the handle joints lie. This is a purely structural limitation, notwithstanding a flash line is produced by the method of molding in a split mold.
Since the limitations having reference to line of flash are structural limitations, all discussion of process limitations in this connection and of the insignificance or immateriality of flash per se seems to me to be beside the point. The rejection is proper because the subject matter claimed, including the location *591limitations of the handle parts defined by reference to the line of flash (or the mark left by the parting line of the mold), is obvious in view of the combined teachings of the references.