Appeal No. 1998-2833
Application No. 08/585,403
5/12/98) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we conclude that
the rejection cannot be sustained.
Both Scheider ‘603 and Scheider ‘847 disclose a honing
tool comprising a relatively short bundle 40 of plastic
abrasive loaded monofilaments and a rectangular cup element 42
which is an integral part of a holder 44. The bundles 40 are
bonded to the bottom surface or wall 45 of the cup element 42
by a layer of adhesive 46, e.g., a cyanoacrylate adhesive.
See, e.g., Scheider ‘847 at col. 1, line 63 through col. 2,
line 4; col. 3, line 25-31; col. 4, lines 9-13; and col. 6,
lines 16-24.
It is the examiner’s position (answer, pages 4 and 5)
that the adhesive layer 46 taught by the references
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007