Appeal No. 1998-2614
Application No. 08/731,713
respective positions, we reverse all the aforementioned
rejections, except for the aforementioned obviousness-type
double patenting rejection. Our reasons for this
determination follow.
The examiner asserts that Shaw teaches by implication a
coated abrasive belt having an endless, seamless backing. See
Answer, pages 4 and 5. However, the examiner admits (Answer,
page 5) that
[Shaw] fails to teach how those skilled in the art
would have provided for the fibers extending
longitudinally lengthwise of the belt (having fibers
extending lengthwise of the belt would have implied
that the fibers were continuous and unbroken
lengthwise of the belt) and further fail to express
the amount of resin used to embed the fibers.
To remedy these deficiencies in Shaw, the examiner relies on
Dyers and any one of Freedlander, Waugh, Marzocchi and Kremer.
Although Dyers is the only one directed to a process for
making a coated endless, seamless abrasive article, the
examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have looked to the industrial drive belt making processes
described in either Freedlander, Waugh, Marzocchi or Kremer to
make the backing layer of the coated endless, seamless
abrasive article taught by Shaw. The examiner further asserts
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007