Appeal No. 2000-0584
Application No. 08/845,673
An additional item relied upon below pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) is:
The admission on lines 1 through 6 on page 4 in the
appellant’s specification concerning per se knowledge
of a grinding disk composed of “a core or base member
of metal, in particular aluminum to which a steel or
bronze ring is provided which supports the abrasive
coating resulting in a relatively stiff and hard
structure” (the admitted prior art).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 51 through 53 and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the German reference.
Claims 54 and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the German reference.2
Claims 55 through 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the German reference in view of Ries.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
16) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
2Although the statement of this rejection in the final
rejection (Paper No. 12) does not include claim 59, the
accompanying explanation clearly indicates that claim 59 was
intended to be rejected. The appellant has chosen not to respond
via a reply brief to the inclusion of claim 59 in the restatement
of the rejection in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 17).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007