Appeal No. 2000-2154
Application 09/136,761
tool 56 is “metallic,” the recitation of “carbide steel” is
3
not anticipated, and the rejection of claim 6 will not be
sustained. See Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793
F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(“absence
from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation”).
Rejection (2)
On page 3 of the final rejection, the examiner states the
basis of this rejection as:
Miller [sic] teaches all the limitations of the
claims except for a tool whose annular side surface is
provided with a plurality of circumferentially spaced
flutes. Held teaches a [sic] abrasive tool, 10, with
flutes, 12f. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention
was made to construct the abrasive tool of Miller [sic],
with flutes as taught by Held, in order to aid in the
removal of abraded particles during the machining
process.
We consider this rejection to be well taken. Held
teaches the provision of flutes in the annular surface of an
abrading wheel in order to effect air cooling. In view of
this teaching, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated
to provide such flutes in the annular surface of Mdller’s
grinding wheel 56 in order to obtain the advantage thereof
3
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007