Appeal No. 2003-1118
Application 08/968,534
onto the belt surface, and evacuating throats 96 and 97 connected
to a vacuum source for removing air and debris.
In proposing to combine Grant and Cothrell to reject claims
1 and 15, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the water jet of
Grant to be an air jet centered in the vacuum port, as taught by
Cothrell, in order to thoroughly and efficiently remove dust and
debris during grinding” (Paper No. 18, page 3).
Even if Grant and Cothrell are assumed to be analogous art
(the appellant urges that they are not), this proposed
combination to reject claims 1 and 15 is unsound. To begin with,
the disparate natures of the devices respectively disclosed by
these references and the fact that Grant considers the use of an
air spray of the sort disclosed by Cothrell to be
counterproductive indicate that the combination stems solely from
impermissible hindsight. Indeed, Grant’s explanation that air
sprays would reduce the aspiration effect of the system
completely belies the examiner’s implication that Cothrell’s air
jet would remove debris more thoroughly and efficiently than
Grant’s liquid spray. Moreover, as Cothrell offers no indication
that air nozzle means 95 is centered within the vacuum flow path
generated by evacuating throats 96 and 97 in the sense required
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007