Appeal No. 2003-1118
Application 08/968,534
by the “centered” limitations in claims 1 and 15 as read in light
of the underlying disclosure, the proposed combination of the
references, even if made, would not result in the subject matter
claimed.
Thus, the combined teachings of Grant and Cothrell do not
justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between
the subject matter set forth in independent claims 1 and 15 and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and
15, and dependent claims 2 through 14, as being unpatentable over
Grant in view of Cothrell.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 16 and 17 as
being unpatentable over Healy in view of Cothrell
Healy discloses a dust collection apparatus for use in a
tire grinding machine, and more particularly different
embodiments of such an apparatus respectively adapted for use
with full face grinding (Figures 1 through 7), shoulder grinding
(Figures 8 through 12), center grinding (Figures 13 through 17)
and sidewall grinding (Figures 18 through 20). As best shown in
Figures 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18, each of the embodiments
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007