Appeal No. 2000-0584
Application No. 08/845,673
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 51 as being anticipated by the German
reference.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 52 and 53, which depend from claim 51, as
being anticipated by the German reference since the appellant has
not argued such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing
these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 51 (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 60.
Claim 60 recites a grinding disc comprising, inter alia, a
metal ring selected from the group consisting of copper and
bronze, and an abrasive coating having a maximum radial thickness
of 3 mm. The German reference is silent as to the material from
which metal strip 1 is made and as to the thickness of abrasive
layer 6, and thus does not meet either of these claim
limitations. Hence, the examiner’s finding of anticipation must
fall.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007