Appeal No. 2000-2154
Application 09/136,761
which simply amount
to attorney argument and do not convince us that one of
ordinary skill would be dissuaded from modifying Mdller as
suggested by Held.
Rejection (2) will accordingly be sustained.
Rejection (3)
Claims 7 to 10 read:
7. A tool according to Claim 1 wherein said abrasive
particles have a grit size of 150.
8. A tool according to Claim 1 wherein said abrasive
particles consist of diamond grit.
9. A tool according to Claim 8 wherein said abrasive
particles have a grit size of 150.
10. A tool according to Claim 1 wherein said member is
formed of carbide steel and said particles are formed of a
synthetic diamond material having a grit size of 150.
In making this rejection, the examiner stated on page 3
of the final rejection that:
Claim 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Miller [sic] as modified by Held5
5Since claims 7 to 10 do not recite any flutes, it is not
apparent why the examiner included Held in this rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007