Appeal No. 2001-2586
Application No. 08/856,501
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appealed claims in light of
the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result of
this review, we have determined that the applied prior art does
not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the rejection of all claims
on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
Tselesin discloses a method of making an abrasive article
using a mask 14 and a brazing and fusing paste (col. 3, lines 32-
41) to define parcels on a substrate 10. Appellants argue that
the substrate 10 of Tselesin is not a tool body. We agree that
appellants' claim requires a tool body, inasmuch as appellants so
argue to differentiate the claimed subject matter from the prior
art, and claim 1 refers to a abrasive tool body with a cutting
surface both in the preamble and several locations in the body of
the claim. We construe the claim term "representing a tool body
for the abrasive tool" to denote that the metal preform is the
tool body in nascent, unthermally processed form. We further
note that the tool body preform is of some three-dimensional
shape, i.e., spherical, conical or frustoconical.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007