Appeal No. 2001-1473
Application 08/946,736
the extent that the declarations do constitute such evidence,
they are clearly outweighed by the examiner’s strong reference
evidence of obviousness. Consequently, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 29 as being
unpatentable over Christian in view of Wiand.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claim 30 as being unpatentable over
Christian in view of Wiand since the appellant has not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing this claim
to stand or fall with parent claim 29 (see In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
III. Claim 31
Claim 31 depends from claim 30 and requires a disk made of a
material having high thermal conductivity to be in intimate
contact with the grinding wheel hub to draw heat away therefrom
for dissipation into a surrounding environment. The examiner’s
reliance on Liss to remedy the acknowledged failure of the basic
Christian-Wiand reference combination to account for these
features is not well founded.
Liss discloses a surface grinder comprising an electric
motor 16 having a drive shaft 14, a grinding wheel 19 mounted on
the shaft, and a bladed fan unit 11, 12 secured on the shaft
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007