Appeal No. 2001-0592
Application 09/110,824
device in Trinkle as being basically dictated by the wet
process of abrading involved therein, which wet process has
nothing to do with the endless grinding and polishing belt
disclosed in Cherrington.
As for the examiner’s rationale that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the
belt of Cherrington with a pattern of holes in view of Trinkle
so as to ensure the heat generated by the belt is dissipated,
we note that there is no indication in the Cherrington patent
that heat build-up is a problem for the grinding and polishing
belt disclosed therein and that in the device of Trinkle the
holes are said to be “for liquid transmissivity” (page 1, col.
2, lines 46-48), with the liquid employed in the abrading
process being described as the means for providing lubricative
cooling to prevent local heating of the work and abrading
device. The holes in the abrasive paper of Trinkle’s device
are also said to serve as a collection area for receiving the
sludge produced during abrading, however, the belt in
Cherrington has no need for such holes for this purpose either
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007