Appeal No. 2000-0584
Application No. 08/845,673
12 and 17) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.3
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 51 through 53 and
60 as being anticipated by the German reference
The German reference pertains to grinding discs for
finishing the edges of spectacle lenses. As described in the
reference,
[i]n the process examples shown in Figs. 1 to 5,
first a metal screen or a perforated sheet 1 has a
layer of abrasive material 2 applied to it, comprising
percentages of alcohol, diamond particles and bronze or
a bronze alloy and a temporary bonding agent which is
gasified or destroyed when heated. -Where a steel
frame is used, pulverized steel may also be used.-
The layer 2 is sprayed or applied evenly onto the screen
or the strip. This may be done by nozzles, a doctor blade
or similar. -Preferably the abrasive material layer 2
is applied only to one side of the metal screen or the
perforated strip, as shown in Fig. 1.
The metal screen or perforated strip 1 is then fed
with the abrasive material layer 2 applied to it to a
calendering device 3 with the rolls 4 and 5. The layer
2 is calendered to a layer 6 on the screen, whereby the
cohesion of the particles of the abrasive material
layer 6 with one another and with the screen or the
perforated strip 1 is further increased. Nevertheless,
the metal screen or perforated strip (now with the
sintered layer 6) remains so ductile and flexible that
(as shown in Fig. 4) the metal screen or perforated
3The copies of the claims appearing in the appendix to the
appellant’s brief contain many inaccuracies.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007