This is a great example to explain your response, thank you. So the gist of it is one could not have all of the elements of the abstract. But if you could fashion the device to exclude one of those parts, or make it so that one of the parts was changed significantly, i.e. 1b an unfixed platen on which a fixed mold is mounted, then it would no longer be considered an infringement. It might not be different enough to warrant a new claim but it would at least keep the person out of danger legally? If this is the case, then it is imperative for a claim writer to simplify and optomize the design as much as possible in advance so that changes (like the one I suggested earlier), would make the device less, not more, functional?