Appeal No. 1996-3472
Application 08/192,088
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view
of Clark. Since we determine that no prima facie case has
been presented, we need not reach the sufficiency of the
comparative showing presented in appellants’ specification
(Brief, pages 7-8, citing Examples 2 and 3 on pages 12-18 of
the specification).
In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Clark is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
OTHER ISSUES
Upon the return of this application to the jurisdiction
of the examiner, the examiner and applicants should review the
admissions in the specification, the Rue and Cottringer
patents, and the Clark article to determine whether there is
any suggestion in the prior art as a whole to use glass-
ceramic bonding, for the advantages taught by Clark with
conventional alumina abrasives, with well known sol-gel
alumina abrasive grains that have vitreous bonding, disclosed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007