Appeal No. 2003-1118
Application 08/968,534
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellant regards as the
invention.
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Grant in view of Cothrell.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Healy in view of Cothrell.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
23) and to the Office action dated January 17, 2001 and the
examiner’s answer (Paper Nos. 18 and 25) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner regarding the merits
of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1
through 15
The following reasoning by the examiner forms the basis for
this rejection:
It is unclear from figure 2, where the flow path
is and how the nozzle is situated in the center. There
are no flow lines to show the path in figure 2. Figure
4 merely shows a nozzle centered in the vacuum flow,
but not the grinding wheels housed in the shroud with
the nozzle and vacuum means [Paper No. 18, page 2].
Presumably, this arguable well taken criticism of the
drawings reflects a concern by the examiner that the limitations
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007