Appeal No. 1996-1699
Application No. 08/077,681
have been obvious
to modify Appellant’s admitted prior art process by
employing alumina grinding media of a smaller particle
size once he [a person of ordinary skill in the art]
realized that the larger-sized alumina grinding media led
to unwanted results, or desired a more exact abrading
procedure. The size of the grinding media, i.e. 400-1500
mesh, is deemed obvious because one having ordinary skill
in the art would have arrived at this optimal particle
size without undue experimentation. (Answer, page 4)
The appellants argue that the applied prior art fails to
provide the necessary incentive or motivation for modifying
the APA in a manner which would have produced the claimed
method (reply brief, page 3). We agree.
We have carefully reviewed both the Reed and Oliver
disclosures, but can find nothing in either reference which
would have reasonably suggested the claimed method to a person
of ordinary skill in the art. We are informed by appellants’
specification (page 2) that it is difficult using conventional
blasting methods to control the blasting depth, especially
close to the cutting edge of the carbide insert, and that
conventional
blasting methods result in damage to the carbide grains and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007