Appeal No. 1996-3942 Page 8
Application No. 08/095,306
applicant's disclosure. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469,
473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the case before us, the examiner has simply failed to
provide acceptable reasons, based on the applied prior art or
on the basis of knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art for the proposed modification. This
is so since the examiner has not convincingly explained why
the combined references would have fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the selection of one of several
possible choices for a co-resin in a nonloading coating of
Rinker as a substitute radiation curable resin for use as a
coat or saturant in the abrasive product of Tumey.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
established that the combined teachings of Tumey and Rinker
provide a factual basis which is sufficient for supporting a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in any of
appellants’ claims. Consequently, we will not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over these references.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007