Ex parte VAN OSENBRUGGEN - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-0111                                                        
          Application 09/077,376                                                      


               1.  An abrasive disk backing plate having a mounting                   
          aperture and an abrasive disk-bearing surface, said plate                   
          being made of a resilient material and being circular with at               
          least three spaced and symmetrically disposed gaps in the                   
          circumference thereof.                                                      
                                   THE PRIOR ART                                      
               The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of                
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Guidry                          3,974,598         Aug. 17,                  
          1976                                                                        
          Robert                          4,158,935         Jun. 26,                  
          1979                                                                        
          Goralski et al. (Goralski)      4,844,967         Jul.  4,                  
          1989                                                                        
                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8, 10 and 12 through 14 stand                
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                
          Goralski in view of Guidry and Robert.                                      
               Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.              
          10) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 11) for the                     
          respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with                 
          regard to the merits of this rejection.                                     
                                     DISCUSSION                                       

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007