Appeal No. 2000-2154
Application 09/136,761
disclosed by Held. While the purpose of the flutes of Held
may not be precisely the same as that of appellant’s flutes
(cooling vs. “to facilitate material removal” ), “the 4
motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not
have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish
obviousness.” In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Appellant contends that it would not have been obvious to
combine Mdller and Held. Referring to col. 3, lines 33 to 36
of Mdller, he asserts, as we understand it, that since Mdller
supplies liquid coolant to the point of machining, one of
ordinary skill would not provide flutes in Mdller’s grinding
wheel 56 because they would trap the abraded particles
3
(brief, page 14). We do not agree with this argument because,
first, the cited portion of Mdller only refers to coolant, not
liquid coolant; the coolant could equally well be air or other
gas, in which case there would be no adhesion of the particles
in the flutes as appellant asserts. Moreover, there is no
evidence in the record to support appellant’s assertions,
4 Specification, page 5, line 7.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007