Appeal No. 1998-2537
Application 08/680,602
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions as set forth by the appellant and the
examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 as being obvious over Graham in view of
Huber, we note that the primary reference to Graham discloses
a
laminated grinding wheel (1) having a thickness of usually
between one sixteenth (1/16) of an inch to three (3) inches
(col. 3, lines 36-38), made of a plurality of layers of
stretchable creped paper (8) and abrasive particles (11)
adhered to the crepe paper via thermosetting resin (12),
creating a grinding wheel lay-up. In an alternative
embodiment, the lay-ups are made of layers of mat paper (2)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007