Appeal No. 2001-0592
Application 09/110,824
that set forth in appellant’s claims on appeal. Trinkle is
relied upon as disclosing a coated abrasive paper having a
pattern of holes (3) therein. The examiner concludes from the
collective teachings of Cherrington and Trinkle that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of appellant’s invention to provide the belt of
Cherrington with abrasive material having a pattern of holes
in view of Trinkle so as to ensure that the heat generated by
the belt is dissipated.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 9, mailed December 7, 1999) for the reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 8, filed
November 19, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007