Appeal No. 98-2158 Page 5
Application No. 08/610,279
member protrude from the abrasive element or sleeve 127. In
order to mount the cylindrical element, these protruding ends
are in turn telescopically received in annular bearings 131,
132. While the annular bearings 131, 132 may broadly be
considered to be a "holder" for the cylindrical member, we do
not believe these annular bearings can fairly be construed to
be a holder having a cavity to receive the abrasive element as
claimed.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 17-20, 28, 29 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Anderson.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-16, 21-27, 30 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson in
view of Scholler, the examiner considers that it would have
been obvious to form the one-piece sharpener of Anderson of a
two-piece construction in view of the teachings of Scholler.
Scholler, however, teaches forming the housing of a sharpener
of two longitudinally extending halves which are joined
together. Recognizing that the claims 1-16 and 21-23 require
that first and second sections be joined along transverse or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007