Appeal No. 1998-2614
Application No. 08/731,713
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to
Dyers only for the amount of resin binder employed per the3
amount of reinforcement materials used in making the coated
endless, seamless abrasive article described in Shaw.
On the appeal record before us, we find that it is only
appellants’ own specification which discloses the desirability
of using the above-mentioned features in combination. There
is no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have employed the less relevant industrial belt making
processes described in either Freedlander, Waugh, Marzocchi or
Kremer over the more relevant coated abrasive endless,
seamless belt making process described in Dyers. Nor is there
any evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
looked to only one section of Dyers at the exclusion of its
remaining teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The
examiner’s position to the contrary is not supported by any
objective evidence. Thus, we are convinced that the
examiner’s § 103 rejections are fatally premised upon
3The examiner states at page 20 of the Answer that “it
cannot be disputed that Dyers employed a different
manufacturing technique (other than that which is claimed by
appellant[s] for forming an endless seamless backing)...”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007