Appeal No. 2000-0584
Application No. 08/845,673
For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 59,
the German reference itself would have suggested an abrasive
coating having a maximum radial thickness of 3 mm.
In addition, the presence of the bronze ring in the admitted
prior art grinding disk would have suggested the use of bronze to
make the corresponding metal strip 1 in the German disk to gain
the self-evident advantages of this material.
Thus, the differences between the subject matter recited in
claim 60 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.
Claims 53, 54, 57 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails to
comply with the written description requirement of this section
of the statute.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of
literal support in the specification for the claim language. In
re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007